$1.25
reporton BLACKLISTING
II • Radio -Television
JOHN COGLEY
THE FUND FOR THE REPUBLIC, INC.
report on BLACKLISTING
II • Radio - Television
JOHN COGLEY
THE FUND FOR THE REPUBLIC, INC.
Copyright 1956 by The Fund for the Republic, Inc.
CONTENTS
Acknowledgment v
Foreword vii
Counterattack and Red Channels 1
The First Cases 22
Blacklisting: An Institution 49
Newsmen and Commentators 7 1
"Clearance" 89
The Syracuse Crusade 1 00
"Take Their Word" 110
Security on Madison Avenue 115
"Clearance" at CBS 122
Aware, Inc. 129
The Theatrical Unions 1 43
Some Interviews 163
Blacklisting Experiences 173
Industry Viewpoints 192
Blacklisting and Broadway 210
Appendix 218
Anti-Communism and Employment Policies
in Radio and Television 221
by MARIE JAHODA
Research Center for Human Relations New York University
Index 282
iii
Acknowledgment
o
THIS REPORT is based on the findings of a staff of researchers and reporters — Edward Engberg, Harriet Davis, Gwendolyn Boulkind, Saul Blackman, Margaret Bushong and William Pfaff.
The study conducted by Dr. Marie Jahoda of the Research Cen- ter for Human Relations, New York University, was wholly independent.
I am indebted to the Fund for the Republic, which sponsored the study, and to all who supplied the material on which the report is based. This latter group includes not only the research staff but some two hundred persons in the radio-television industry who gave freely of their time for lengthy interviews. Special thanks are due to my assistant Michael Harrington, who gave invaluable help in organizing the mass of material collected, and to James Greene, the project secretary.
The conclusions found in these pages are mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect the judgments of any other person.
JOHN COGLEY
Foreword
MOST AMERICANS ARE CONVINCED that loyalty-security investiga- tions of people working for the government in sensitive positions or seeking key federal jobs are necessary to protect the government from the infiltration of persons who might try to destroy it. But when loyalty tests are applied by private groups to people in private industries — and people are barred from jobs because they are "controversial" — many citizens become alarmed.
The present report (with its companion volume dealing with the motion picture industry) embodies the results of a study initiated by The Fund for the Republic in September, 1954, when many Americans had become disturbed by the revelation of blacklisting practices in the radio, television, and motion picture industries.
At the time this study was launched, such blacklisting was a subject of vigorous public controversy, involving civil liberties issues of a serious kind. It raised questions of freedom of thought and speech, of due process, of the protection of the individual against group pressures and of the community against the disloyalty of the individual. It was a controversy in which all participants commonly spoke in the name of the Constitution and civil liberty, but in violently conflicting terms.
Those who advocated blacklisting practices did so on the ground that Communist and pro-Communist infiltration into the entertain- ment industries represented a serious peril to the American system of law and governance, and therefore to the freedoms which it enshrines. The peril might be direct, through giving Communists
vii
access to mass media into which they could introduce subversive propaganda, or which they might even sabotage given the proper circumstances. It might be only indirect, permitting Communist sympathizers to enjoy popular esteem, earning incomes which would help support Communist causes, operating their own black- lists against anti-Communists and promoting the interests of an international conspiracy directed toward the destruction of all liberties. In any case, it was contended, the extirpation from the entertainment industries of proven members of the Communist conspiracy and of all who were considered to have lent it their support or had been indifferent to its dangers (and remained im- penitent) was essential as a protection to American institutions.
Opponents of blacklisting contended that such a policy could only subvert the rights and liberties it sought to protect. Some held that it violated the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and thought, since it destroyed an individual's livelihood on the sole ground of his political beliefs. This raised the issue whether a sympathy with Communism could properly be regarded as a "political belief" or must be taken as proof of complicity in a criminal conspiracy, even though no criminal charge could be brought. Beyond that, many who accepted the view that a con- vinced Communist should be barred from the cameras and micro- phones were disturbed by the methods being used to achieve this result. It was contended that blacklisting resulted in the ruin of many entirely loyal individuals without formal charges, hearings or other safeguards of due process, often on flimsy or mistaken charges and at the dictates of self-appointed censors or pressure groups.
Several things were apparent in this controversy. The major arguments simply did not meet. The facts around which the argu- ments raged were largely unknown. In these issues, plainly of critical importance to all those interested in the preservation of civil liberty, the information necessary to arriving at valid conclu- sions was largely unavailable. It was not even clear whether a
vm
blacklisting system actually existed in the motion picture, radio and TV industries. If it existed, it was not known on what principles it worked, who controlled it, how accurate were the criteria it applied in screening Communists and pro-Communists out of the industries, what were the motives which might have contributed to its growth. Beyond the somewhat rough-and-ready disclosures of the various investigating committees, there was little useful data on the nature and extent of Communist influence in the industries; on the effect, if any, which it had exerted on the output; on the extent to which the Communists themselves had engaged in black- listing practices, or on numerous other facts essential to formu- lating any answers for the issues of civil liberties here involved. The subject was being debated, in short, in a vacuum.
The Fund for the Republic was established as an educational undertaking in the field of civil liberties in the United States. It seemed to its Directors that here were problems of immediate con- cern and that the Fund could render a useful service toward their solution by ascertaining the facts involved. It asked John Cogley, then Executive Editor of The Commonweal, to study and report upon the situation as a whole. This he has done. Mr. Cogley and his associates have interviewed — so far as they found it possible to do so — every important interest concerned. These include ex- ecutives of the motion picture industry and the radio and TV chains, the advertising agencies, leading advertisers, the theatrical unions, leaders of anti-Communist organizations and others promi- nent in "listing" or "clearing" individuals, and many producers, directors, actors, writers, reporters, news commentators and agency men.
From the first it was recognized that this was a highly complex question, and Mr. Cogley and his associates have been scrupulous in trying to present all significant points of view. He was given a free hand in the organization of the study and presentation of the facts. While he accepts responsibility for this report as its director
ix
and author, the Board of The Fund for the Republic wishes to state its full confidence in the calm deliberation which he has given to its preparation. We believe he has done a thorough job in a very difficult field.
It was recognized that many in the industries are aware of the difficulties raised by blacklisting and have been wrestling earnestly with them. Mr. Cogley has tried to give a detailed picture of a situation as it exists. He has brought in no indictments, and has offered no recommendations. The Board of the Fund for the Republic offers none, believing that progress in resolving the con- flicts of interest, viewpoint, and principle involved must and will come hi the first instance from the industries affected. But even this progress must ultimately turn upon public knowledge and understanding of the actual situation and its problems. This report seeks only to supply the data on which such knowledge and under- standing may be established.
FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE FUND FOR THE REPUBLIC: By Paul G. Hoffman, Chairman
v_
Counterattack and Red Channels
COUNTERATTACK is a weekly, four-page newsletter published by the American Business Consultants in New York. It was founded in 1 947 as Counterattack, the Newsletter of Facts on Communism.
Subscribers to Counterattack ($24 yearly) are entitled to the Special Reports which the newsletter publishes irregularly. The most famous of these reports was made available to the public at one dollar a copy and bore the name Red Channels, The Report of Communist Influence in Radio and Television.
Red Channels provided a list of 151 persons in the radio-tele- vision industry who, the editors claimed, were linked, either hi the past or present, with a variety of "Communist causes." The "links" were cited in each case. They included organizations identified as subversive by the Attorney General, the House Committee on Un- American Activities, the California Un-American Activities Com- mittee and other official and private sources. Among the private sources were the authors of Red Channels themselves.
At the beginning of the volume there is a disclaimer pointing out that the listed activities or associations may well have been innocent of subversive intent; Red Channels is only reporting them. This statement made it virtually impossible for the listed people to obtain legal satisfaction for damages suffered as a result of the listing. The accuracy of some Red Channels sources has been suc- cessfully challenged, many of those named in its pages have since
1
been "cleared," and the volume itself has been superseded by a number of newer listings. But its publication in June, 1950, marked the formal beginning of blacklisting in the radio-tv industry.
The booklet soon became known as "the Bible of Madison Avenue" (center of the radio-tv industry in New York). It was consulted by network executives, advertising agencies, radio-tv packagers and sponsors. Its underlying thesis — that Communists were "infiltrating" the radio-tv field and should be removed — became something of a doctrine in the industry.
The editors of Counterattack never held that everyone listed in Red Channels was actually an "infiltrator," nor did they claim that everyone listed in the publication was a Communist. But they did believe that those whose names appeared on the list had some ex- plaining to do and should be called on to prove their anti-commu- nism by word and deed or be kept out of the industry. The industry, by and large, accepted the proposition. Counterattack's standards of what constituted "infiltration," "communistic associations," and grounds for suspicion were almost universally adopted up and down Madison Avenue. There have been numberless disagree- ments within the industry as to whether this or that individual actually was "infiltrating," had been associated in any meaningful sense with the Communist conspiracy, or was indeed reasonably suspect. But Red Channels was remarkably successful in getting the industry to accept Counterattack's standards.
Most significant, the acceptance of Red Channels meant that the radio-tv industry officially adopted the political point-of-view espoused by Counterattack. Very few in the industry seemed to give their sincere support to Counterattack's political evaluations, yet almost the entire industry, as far as employment practices went, acted on them. The standards of employability were Counterat- tack's; the measure of patriotism was Counterattack's; "pro-Com- munist" and "anti-Communist" opinions, acts and associations, in the last analysis, were judged as Counterattack judges them.
2
Since the American Business Consultants is a private organiza- tion, Counterattack's opinions represent no more than the opinions of its editors. In the past (according to the newsletter itself), the editors have been consulted by Congressional committees because of their special knowledge of communism. But they have often been highly critical of the Government's anti-Communist efforts. The original prospectus announcing Counterattack stated flatly that ". . . the efforts of our government to combat Communist activities have failed to eliminate the effectiveness of this 5th column ..." Counterattack, therefore, was designed "to obtain, file and index factual information on Communists, Communist fronts and other subversive organizations."*
Counterattack, however, has not confined its attacks to sub- versive organizations. A goodly portion of its energies has gone into combatting those ideas, activities and groups which the editors feel "help" the Communists. "Helping the Communists" is rarely in- tentional; it is often rooted in political naivete. But on this basis
* The three founding editors had some experience in this field. They were ex-FBI men who had collaborated first as researchers for an anti-Communist pub- lication called Plain Talk (financed by millionaire Alfred Kohlberg and edited by Isaac Don Levine), then as directors of a Washington, D. C. corporation known as John Quincy Adams Associates. As John Quincy Adams Associates the three ex-FBI men — Ken Bierly, now with Columbia pictures; Ted Kirkpatrick, now with an Illinois business corporation; and John Keenan, still publisher of Counterattack — collected and distributed information about communism upon request. Their work was done mainly for clergymen, union leaders and persons frequently approached by charitable and civic organizations who were anxious not to support a hidden Communist cause.
John Quincy Adams Associates dissolved after a year when the organization failed to win a permanent not-for-profit rating. The three partners, then, with the financial support of some well-to-do anti-Communists, set up the American Busi- ness Consultants in New York, in April, 1947. The new company had the dual purpose of publishing a newsletter and promoting "scientific research technical investigations." In addition to publishing Counterattack, the American Business Consultants went on making special reports, like the John Quincy Adams Asso- ciates, but with the difference that ABC charged fees (from $5 to five-figure sums) while JQAA merely accepted voluntary contributions. Some work was done gratis — "We're like a doctor," one of the Consultants once told a magazine writer. "Doctors always have some charity patients."
Counterattack at one time or another has lashed out against prac- tically every major newspaper in the City of New York and casti- gated departments of the executive branch of the Government, both Houses of the legislative branch, and a whole anagram set of private organizations - NBC, CBS, the YWCA, the ACLU, among others.
During recent years book reviewers have lauded the literary style of writers considered "subversive" by Counterattack; national magazines have publicized dubious entertainers; newspapers have announced the meetings of suspect organizations — these and countless other incidents are occasions of "helping the Commu- nists." Counterattack often seems to measure every movement and event in American life by the simple standards of its "help" criterion.
Evil acts of course only became more malicious when the crite- rion is applied — thus racial discrimination or union racketeering is worthy of censure not only by the tenets of ordinary morality but also because they "help" Communist propagandists. But when the measure is applied to acts good or indifferent in themselves, Counterattack sometimes seems compelled to condemn activities that many Americans feel are the normal manifestations of free political debate. A petition to gain clemency for the Rosenbergs or have the Supreme Court decide on the Constitutional issues in the Hollywood Ten Case, a protest against real (or, as Counter- attack usually says, "imagined") instances of censorship, a steady concern for civil liberties, a study of blacklisting or of government security measures, a protest against atomic warfare, against the methods of a Senator McCarthy — these and a much wider cate- gory of activities are worthy of solemn condemnation if in some way they "help the Communists." In a 1955 issue of the newsletter, for instance, readers were urged to write to President Eisenhower and ask him for a "public and personal statement on the reports be- ing circulated that he thoroughly enjoyed The Investigator'* now
* "The Investigator" is a phonograph record lampooning Senator McCarthy.
4
that its Communist authorship and Party-line inspiration is evident." The President was thus asked to consider whether, when he thought it over, he really enjoyed something which, if he enjoyed at all, he enjoyed months before.
"Proof is available for every statement made in Counterattack" the newsletter declared in an early issue. This claim is not as im- pressive as it sounds since Counterattack's most startling "expo- sures" have been reports of reports. It is as if one took journalistic pride in the accuracy with which he copied even wrong numbers from a telephone book. If, for instance, Actor T has been cited as belonging to Organization P, which has been cited by the Cali- fornia Tenney Committee as subversive, Counterattack does not take a great chance when it states the fact. It sometimes happens that Actor T actually did not belong to Organization P, or it some- times happens that Organization P was not actually subversive in any meaningful sense despite the Tenney Committee — but Count- erattack has fulfilled its obligation, it feels, when it reports what the Tenney Committee had to say about Organization P and Actor T.
Of course, the newsletter's readers, not without reason, often conclude, (a) that Actor T did belong to Organization P, (b) that the organization was indeed subversive and (c) that Actor T is likewise subversive — and, so concluding, are misled on one or all three counts. But the burden for undoing the mischief caused by Counterattack's report then falls on Actor T. It is his obligation to prove that he did not belong to the organization, or that the organi- tion was not subversive, or in any case that he was not consciously involved in any of its subversion. Perhaps he can succeed in con- vincing not only Counterattack's readers but his employers as well that he is a patriot and always has been. But, withal, Counterattack remains a model of journalistic accuracy — the newsletter has "proof" for every statement made in its pages!
5
After nine months of crying out against Communist "infiltra- tion," Counterattack, on January 16, 1948, attempted to identify and enumerate the personnel in the threat. This is what it had to say:
What is meant by a Communist? Sometimes Counterattack reports that such and such a person is "a Communist Party member" and that another is "a Communist." Is this difference in terminology intentional? Yes.
All Communist Party members are Communists . . . but not ALL Communists are Communist Party members. The Communist Party itself has said that one who supports the Party and cooperates with it is a Communist, even if he isn't a member. It is in this sense that Counterattack uses the term.
What does a Communist believe in? Whatever the Party believes in. The word "communism" with a small "c", or Communism with a big "C" has meant different things at different times for centuries. We could use a thousand pages to examine these differences. But the only sensible definition of "Communism" today is this:
Communism means the practices & REAL doctrines of Stalin Russia. Not the doctrines that Stalin sometimes pretends to believe in, but those that he really works at.
And a Communist is anyone who supports the Communist Party on every important question. Some Communist non-members occasionally dissent on slight details. That doesn't matter. They're still Com- munists . . .
As for actual Party membership, Counterattack estimated in its second issue that there were 80,000 dues-paying Communists hi the American Party. However, less than two months later, "Count- erattack investigators" produced an "inside report" that member- ship was up to 84,000. And, the report continued, "Organizational Secretary Henry Winston privately expects 90,000 by end of year. This means 90,000 enlisted dues-paying members ... the 'tank corps' of a much bigger army of non-member Communists."
The story of Counterattack's concern with those it considers "fronters" stretches over the entire span of the newsletter's history.
Even by the time Red Channels appeared (in five instances persons were listed there for only one affiliation), the editors could not, or did not attempt to, distinguish between "dupes" and ideologues, a fact widely criticized at the time.
But some decision must be made as to what organizations are truly "fronts." The newsletter itself recognized the difficulty. In June, 1947 Counterattack asked: "Which organizations are really fronts and which aren't? How can a jury be expected to distinguish? And if a jury does decide that a certain organization is a front, how can it tell whether the defendant helped it as a Communist or as an 'innocent'? — Some eminent persons, including Supreme Court justices and conservative multi-millionaires, have innocently spon- sored Communist fronts."
Nevertheless, on December 19, 1947, after the Attorney Gen- eral's list had been made public, Counterattack named 34 fronts not included by the AG which "ought to have been." A few months later it gave its readers a list of 192 "fronts," 119 of which, it pointed out, did not appear on the Attorney General's list.
The issue was basic, and one must look to the general obscurity of the newsletter in these early days in order to understand why it was not thrashed out then and there.
The issue was whether the American public would accept a private group, however knowledgeable, fair, careful or scrupulous it might be, which compiled its own list of subversive organizations and then put the considerable public pressure at its disposal to force anyone associated with the organization at any time to "explain" his association or suffer the consequences. For the most part, it was not a question of legality but of political prudence.
Another problem came up in deciding who had lent their names to "fronts" of -whatever citation. The Communists, it is clear, were not always scrupulous about the use of names. And in its issue for July 16, 1954, Counterattack noted their duplicity. Under a head-
7
ing "Red Front Uses Phony Sponsor List," Counterattack men- tioned a letter being circulated by the Spanish Refugee Appeal of the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee:
. . . On the letterhead, as national sponsors, were 100 prominent names. The obvious ones stood out: Howard Fast, Dalton Trumbo and Alvah Bessie of Hollywood's "unfriendly nine" and Paul Robeson. Then there were some shockers — names whose appearance on a front's letterhead in this day and age were unbelievable. They were: Pierre Monteux, the distinguished conductor; Yehudi Menuhin, the violinist; Hazel Scott and her husband, Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.; the composer, Leonard Bernstein; and Bartley C. Crum. Counterattack wrote to each of them, as well as to others whose names seemed out of place on a Communist appeal because of their actions of recent years. From these persons named, and from several others, prompt replies were received. In each case the person either denied ever having given authority for the use of their name — and said they would demand withdrawal — or produced good evidence that they had demanded that the Appeal drop their names as far back as 1948. (It is only fair, the editors feel, to omit the names of persons who did not reply or whose address was unknown.)
But Counterattack was not ready to discount the Communists' own lists entirely. "Anyone of responsibility," it declared in con- nection with the "phony" sponsor list, "whose name still might be improperly attached to such a pro-Communist group has a definite responsibility of seeing that his name is removed."
A similar case had come up in the pages of Counterattack in January, 1954. The editors took out after singer Harry Belafonte, described as a "Communist fronter," and listed, among four trans- gressions: "Belafonte entertained for the Distributive Workers Union in 1950." The union at that time, according to Counter- attack, was a "100% follower of the Party line." Belafonte was also cited for entertaining at a "Freedom Rally" with Paul Robeson.
In its February 4 issue, the newsletter announced that "Bela- fonte has since approached Counterattack to clarify his stand." Belafonte denied he had entertained for the union but admitted
8
other transgressions. What was Counterattack's proof that Bela- fonte had "entertained for" this union? As it pointed out in its pages, "the union's paper of March 12, 1950, stated that he had entertained at one of its affairs the previous Sunday." For some reason, Belafonte had not been living up to his responsibility to protest this use of his name.
In the case of the "Freedom Rally" he made a good try. "Bela- fonte," the newsletter said about this charge, "says he did not give Robeson permission to use his name for, and that he did not appear at, the 'Freedom' rally . . . and that he sent a release to various New York City newspapers pointing out these facts at the time. This is verified by the fact that Belafonte has given Counterattack a copy of a newspaper containing mention of his release." On the other two counts against Belafonte the newsletter had been right. But it offered no apology for its own "misuse" of the singer's name. It said : " 'Counterattack has always held that persons associated with Communist fronts cannot be 'cleared' by anyone but themselves. At the same time Counterattack has always been willing to help such persons in their efforts to clarify their positions and take an anti-CP stand." The newsletter mentioned that in 1952 Belafonte had written a private letter to a producer in Hollywood, stating he would exercise "extreme care in his future associations." "As far as Counterattack can determine, Belafonte has not supported any fronts since that time."
Apparently, Belafonte's mistake was that he had not been "cleared" by the editors of Counterattack.
When Counterattack first appeared, in 1947, the nation was not yet united on the kind of militant anti-communism that marked the next few years. American diplomats attended the Moscow Con- ference in March, in an attempt to stem the mounting animosity between East and West. Yet, in the same month, President Truman, in a speech before a joint session of Congress on the need
9
for aid to Greece and Turkey, warned that "totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples by direct or indirect aggression undermine the foundation of international peace and hence the security of the United States."
One of the warmest public debates that year was whether or not to outlaw the American Communist Party, which had been esablished in 1919. The American Legion and Daughters of the American Revolution heartily supported the measure. They were opposed by J. Edgar Hoover, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups. The National Commander of the Catholic War Veterans suggested all Communist Party members be deported (presumably to Russia). In October, 1947, news of the re-estab- lishment of the Cominform in Eastern Europe reached the United States and was largely accepted as proof that the Comintern, a group dedicated to violent world upheaval and supposedly dis- solved by Stalin himself in 1943, had been revived.
The Communist Party was a murky image in most minds; but its very presence in American political life made the problem of dealing with communism at home and abroad considerably more difficult and complex.
The inauguration of a newsletter designed to present "facts on communism" seemed a step in the right direction. Counterattack, however, concerned itself less with communism than with Commu- nists and especially those of name or prestige who "helped the Communists," a variety of "dupes," "stooges," "innocents" and "appeasers." It was evident, too, that the newsletter was to use words like "Communist" and "front" in special ways to be found neither in the public dictionaries nor the public mind. .Favored words in these early issues of the newsletter were those that identi- fied the opposing camps — "anti-Communists" (i.e., in agreement with Counterattack) and "fifth-columnists." These two camps were engaged in an ideological (and in some sense, economic) civil war — a war linked with democracy's world-wide struggle against
10
communism. "Action on the labor front," an early issue claimed, "must go hand in hand with action against public officials, actors, writers and so on who cunningly sell the Moscow line." The news- letter early in its history espoused the denaturalization of Commu- nists, as the Nazis had been denaturalized, and called for the dis- barment of lawyers in the National Lawyers Guild.
In its 31 issues for 1947 (it missed twice during that first year of publication) little space was devoted to the entertainment field and the slight interest in show folk continued through 1948. Most of Counterattack's attention was given to communism in the trade unions. The most important event in the entertainment world, of course, was the House Un-American Activities Committee inves- tigation of Hollywood. Counterattack heartily endorsed J. Parnell Thomas and urged its readers to do likewise. On October 31, it explained: "Movie Stars, Writers, Directors Have a Divine Right to be Quislings. This is the implicit meaning of terrific propaganda drive by Hollywood celebrities and movie producers against Thomas Committee ... A cat may look at a king but Congress may not take a square look at the doings of Hollywood royalty." It went on to cite the Committee for the First Amendment as a "front," and advised its readers to write their Congressmen in support of the House probe.
In September, 1947, Counterattack stated its policy:
Most important thing of all is to base your whole policy on a firmly moral foundation. Space should not be rented to the Communist Party or to any Communist front. Supplies should not be sold to them. They should not be allowed to participate in meetings or to have time on the air or to advertise in the press. No concession should ever be made to them for any business reason.
Communist actors, announcers, directors, writers, producers, etc., whether in radio, theatre, or movies, should all be barred to the extent permissible by law and union contracts. There should be no avoidable dealings with any union official who has shown by his acts that he is secretly a Communist Party member or fellow-traveler.
11
The newsletter admitted that
Sometimes it won't be easy to follow this rule. But we may as well recognize that anything we gain now by personal or business appease- ment will eventually plague us, as international appeasement has al- ready done.
In October it swung even harder:
The way to treat Communists is to ostracize them. How would you act towards men who had been convicted of treason? Would you befriend them, invite them [sic], listen to them? Or would you treat them as outcasts?
Total ostracism . . . that's the only effective way. It's the only way to freeze the Communists out. It's the only DEED that will prove you believe what you say about them. And so it's the most convincing propaganda.
The newsletter opposed the employment of "fronters" and "Communists" (members and "non-members") because money paid to them by American business would find its way to support propaganda and espionage activities. Occasionally an instance of direct propaganda was detected and "exposed" in the pages of Counterattack. From time to time the editors discussed the Party's use of "historical parallels," especially in plays and movies, and scrutinized the words of writers it considered subversive.
On August 8, 1947, the following item appeared in the news- letter:
Arthur Miller has disclosed that the Army has acquired the right to produce his play "All My Sons" in Germany. So American soldiers there and many Germans will see a play . . . based on the theme that U. S. manufacturers produced defective airplanes and .other equipment during the war, clamly endangering the lives of their own sons . . . Miller twisted the facts in a central situation in his play. He wrote a scene in which a manufacturer releases some defective airplane cylinders to the Army by simply telephoning to his factory and giving instruc- tions. But in reality no manufacturer had the power to release military equipment. That was up to Army inspectors in the plant, who generally were pretty rigorous in their tests. But this point has apparently been
12
overlooked by some Army authorities in Germany. Who is responsible for choosing . . . Miller's play. Some innocent in the Army? Or some Communist?
A few weeks later, the newsletter reported that "National Com- mander Max H. Sorenson of Catholic War Veterans protested to War Department which thereupon revoked its plan to produce the play in occupied zones. . . ." The editors went on to ask: "Are you speaking out publicly against Communist plans after they are ex- posed in Counterattack? Max Sorenson's public protest in this case brought quick results. It should serve as an example to many subscribers."*
The history of the next seven years showed that it served as a very good example.
Counterattack turned its attention more and more to the enter- tainment world. Many of the names later listed in Red Channels began to get frequent mention in the newsletter. There were de- mands that such people be ostracized by sincere and conscientious anti-Communists. When they appeared on radio or television, Counterattack supporters were urged to protest.
Roughly one month before Red Channels came out, the news- letter notified its readership that "certain groups in the Association of Actors and Artistes of America, Radio and Television Directors Guild, and Radio Writers Guild have gotten together to form an organization to fight what they claim is a 'blacklist' of radio and tv performers who are considered 'liberal or leftist.' " Counter- attack noted that the immediate cause of this step was the firing of director Betty Todd, who pleaded the Fifth Amendment before an investigating body. "What," Counterattack asked, "to do?" . . . "You have written to CBS before to criticize the appearance of
* At $24 a year Counterattack could not expect a mass circulation. It did depend though on having influential subscribers capable of alerting and mobilizing a much larger group.
13
performers with pro-Communist records on its programs. Now write to Wm. S. Paley, Chairman of the Board of CBS, at 485 Madi- son Avenue, New York City. Congratulate him for the action CBS has taken in this case, and tell him to stick to his position in spite of any pressure exerted to reverse it. Let him know that you back him up completely."
Shortly afterwards it was June, 1950.
The period from June 20 to June 30, 1950, was a kind of anti- Communists' Ten Days That Shook the World. In the pages of the seismographic tabloids in New York, the political rumbles were picked up in rapid succession. On Tuesday, June 20, columnist Drew Pearson struck out in the Mirror at Representative Wood, then Chairman of the House Un-American Activities Committee, for not following through on Parnell Thomas' investigation of Hollywood. On Wednesday, June 21, Ed Sullivan in the Daily News predicted: "A bombshell will be dropped into the offices of radio-tv networks, advertising agencies and sponsors this week, with the publication of Red Channels." On Thursday, Red Chan- nels was published. The next day, June 23, the Mirror reported:
RED INFILTRATION OF TV, RADIO BARED
Details of Red infiltration in the radio and television broadcast fields, together with names of well-known personalities allegedly linked with Communist causes are contained in the book "Red Channels," pub- lished yesterday.
The book was compiled by the editors of "Counterattack," a weekly anti-Communist newsletter, with the help of former FBI agents, includ- ing Theodore Kirkpatrick, specialist in Communist cases.
Methods used by the Communists to ensnare radio and television artists are presented in the book, which describes a "blacklist" system whereby they attempt to freeze anti-Red persons out of the industry. Those who support the Communists, the book says, are boosted with better jobs.
On Sunday, two days later, the first reports of the Korean con- flict began trickling across the pages of the nation's newspapers.
14
Five days later, when Walter WinchelTs Girl Friday's report ap- peared in the Mirror, she spoke of a shakeup in radio-tv and cited as the cause of it not Red Channels but that other explosion — the Korean War. "Dear Mr. W.," Girl Friday wrote, "The Korean crisis sent network officials into action to rid programs of 'persons who might embarrass them.' "
The editors of Counterattack, throughout the summer, kept their readers informed of Red Channels' impact. The day after Red Channels was published, Counterattack warned:
IN AN EMERGENCY (at any given time)
IT WOULD REQUIRE ONLY THREE PERSONS (subversives)
one engineer in master control at a radio network
one director in a radio studio
one VOICE before a microphone TO REACH 90 MILLION AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH A MESSAGE*
Two weeks later it was able to report: "Nationwide Reception of Red Channels Is Overwhelmingly Favorable. Since publication of Counterattack's report, two weeks ago, on Communist influence in the radio and television industry, favorable notices and praise for Red Channels have appeared in broadcasting industry publica- tions and in daily newspapers from New York to Los Angeles. Ed Sullivan, master of ceremonies of the popular tv show Toast of the Town,' praised Red Channels highly in his nationally syndicated column, 'Little Old New York.' One of the things stressed by Sullivan was the importance and power of Counterattack hi the radio and television industry."
The newsletter, however, added that "Counterattack, in itself, has no power or importance. Any influence Counterattack has exerted for good in the broadcasting industry has come from the loyal
*Val Peterson, Administrator of Federal Civil Defense, stated in June, 1955, that "in actual civil defense emergencies, use would be made, as required, of the various forms of existing communications which are governed by appropriate Federal Communications Commission regulations."
15
freedom-loving Americans who are subscribers and who act on the information given in the newsletter."
One of the first Red Channels listees to come forward with an "explanation" was actor Roger De Koven, who had one citation (the Waldorf Peace Conference) . In the July 7 edition of Counter- attack his case was covered.
After a consultation which impressed Counterattack with his sin- cerity, De Koven signed a statement embodying the following clauses: "1. He has absolutely no sympathy for the Communist movement, domestic or foreign and is opposed to totalitarians of all kinds. 2. He believes that the present government of Russia under Stalin, is an absolute dictatorship and completely undemocratic. 3. At the time he agreed to sponsor the Waldorf Conference he did not know that it was a Communist front affair. If he had known its true nature he would not have sponsored it. His stand on this matter applies to all Commu- nist fronts, present or future. 4. When he agreed to read the speech of Dr. Juan Marinello of Cuba and message of writer Thomas Mann at the Conference, he did not know that Marinello was Chairman of Communist Party of Cuba or that Mann had an extensive record of Communist front activity.*
Red Channels listees continued to be named each week in the newsletter, to show that they were still active in the entertainment field. The immediate cry went up that the booklet was intended as a blacklist. But Counterattack was ready for the charge. On July 28 it dealt with the problem:
But the whole "blacklist" question is a sham. "Blacklisting," the firing of a person (or refusal to hire him) for .union activity, is for- bidden by federal and state laws. A union local resolution cannot add strength to these laws. They are already completely effective.
Groups interested in this campaign are really concerned about what they call "political" blacklisting. But broadcasting companies don't
* De Koven was cited solely for his participation in the Waldorf Peace Confer- ence: "translated message received from Thomas Mann; also translated speech of Dr. Juan Marinello of Cuba."
16
blacklist Republicans, Democrats, Socialists or any other loyal Americans.
They do have an obligation, as a matter of public trust, to refuse to hire those who give aid and comfort to Stalin by helping his U.S. arm, the Communist Party, or its numerous front organizations.
Just what individuals listed in Red Channels had to do to get off the hook was discussed in September, 1950. In a zig-zag of affirma- tion and denial, Counterattack tried to clear up the matter:
What the New York Times Said and Didn't Say. Last week Counter- attack reported that the New York Herald Tribune had stated in an editorial that Ted Kirkpatrick, managing editor of Counterattack, had been "quoted as announcing that none whom he suspects will be absolved until they have come to him with positive proof of their innocence" and that later "the New York Times reported this falsehood as a fact."
Actually the Times didn't say quite that. It said that Kirkpatrick "said he believed persons accused of pro-Communist sympathies had to offer affirmative proof of their innocence." Many readers inferred that this meant that such proof had to be offered to him, though the Times didn't say so. Naturally, such a doctrine is repellent to Ameri- canism and to justice. Nobody who is merely accused of anything has to offer affirmative proof of innocence to anybody.
A few more listees came forward in October with statements of denial and/or recantation. The newsletter noted their statements in its pages.
Meanwhile, Counterattack subscribers and the groups they alerted were bombarding the networks with letters and receiving replies from one network (CBS) assuring them that "through our control of programs on the air, we believe we have made Com- munist infiltration impossible." Whereupon the newsletter armed its subscribers with the names of nine persons who had recently appeared on CBS. All were Red Channels listees. It seemed clear that CBS and Counterattack were talking about two different things when they spoke of "infiltration."
17
About this time, Red Channels was fast becoming a source in itself. The booklet of course has long been replaced, but since one of its authors* has stated that the "basic issue" of such compila- tions is in their "accuracy," and has carried this conviction over into AWARE, Inc., a more recent effort "to combat the Communist con- spiracy in entertainment-communications," a look at Red Channels may still be of some value.
"The most remarkable thing about the whole furor over AWARE," Vincent Hartnett wrote the Editor of The New York Times, "is that none of A WARE'S critics seem inclined to discuss the basic issue: Was A WARE'S Publication No. 12 accurate or was it not?" Publication No. 12 is a compilation similar to Red Channels. The compilations are lists of the leftist activities of various show people, and the burden of the argument seems to be that those listed are either "dupes" or genuine subversives. On the basis of such lists, people are decreed "unemployable." Hartnett would have it that the "basic issue" is whether these publications faithfully and hon- estly report what is in their source documents. The defining of the "basic issue," then, seems to represent in its small way the Triumph of the Clerk. Indeed the impression left by a study of Hartnett's work leads one to believe that he has modeled himself after Chaucer's Clerk of Oxenford:
Noght o word spak he moore than was neede And that was seyd in forme and reverence And short and quyk and full of hy sentence
In defining the "basic issue," Vincent Hartnett is on safe grounds, for there is no question of his clerkly talents — Red Channels is a model of transcription. Its compiler faithfully copied down the citations in the original sources. His slight errors are wholly for- givable, considering the tedium of the task he set himself to. So if
* Vincent Hartnett, though never an editor of Counterattack, wrote the introduc- tion to the book and speaks of it as "my Red Channels."
18
Hartnett has correctly stated the "basic issue," he and AWARE, Inc. and all the others have won the argument hands down.
But has he?
It should be remembered that nearly all the official documents cited by the professional anti-Communist are tabulations of names made by the Communists themselves. No hearings have been held to determine whether or not the use of these names was authorized. In some cases they were not authorized. But, that aside, has Vin- cent Hartnett defined the "basic issue"? Are those whose minds float toward ethical abstracts, who wish to discuss issues of "in- nuendo," "due process," "civil liberties," or "slander" out of touch with current reality? That is a quarrel which has separated pro- and anti-blacklisting factions in labor unions, newspaper offices, theatre companies and living rooms ever since Red Channels appeared.
Page 9 of Red Channels, which sets forth the authors' purposes, seems to be the most unread section of the book. Three purposes are listed:
One, to show how the Communists have been able to carry out their plan of infiltration of the radio and television industry.
Two, to indicate the extent to which many prominent actors and artists have been inveigled to lend their names, according to these public records, to organizations espousing Communist causes. This, regardless of whether they actually believe in, sympathize with, or even recognize the cause advanced.
Three, to discourage actors and artists from naively lending their names to Communist organizations or causes in the future.
One or two points, raised by the first of these purposes, still seem worthy of discussion. The first purpose begs two questions: Did the Communists have a "plan of infiltration"? The word "infiltration" is vague at best - it might mean "gaining influence" or "executive control" or it might mean "technical control." Only the first of these would fit the instances cited in Red Channels. Granted, however,
19
that there was such a plan, the second question is whether these subversive elements were able to carry it out.
Certainly, in the beginning, the networks, and possibly the ad agencies and sponsors, did not understand what Counterattack meant by "infiltration." When complaints came in about this or that one working, industry spokesmen answered that they had full control over everything heard on the air.
The second purpose indicates that the compilers are not separat- ing the "guilty" from the "innocent." They are simply listing every- one at the scene of the crime — and leave it to each to establish his innocence. "According to these public records," the compilers assert. And since the citations are generally accurate, and since Vincent Hartnett says their accuracy is the "basic issue," then . . . But what happens when the source document is wrong?
Pianist Hazel Scott, who was listed in Red Channels and is the wife of a Congressman, was given the opportunity (because of her husband's status) to testify, under oath, about her Red Channels listings. She had nine listings :
National Citizens Political Action Committee
Citizens Non-Partisan Committee to Elect Benjamin J. Davis
Progressive Citizens of America (Citizens Committee of the
Upper West Side) Musician's Congress Committee Artists' Front to Win the War
American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born American Peace Mobilization Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee Civil Rights Congress
After stating that she had never been notified her name was to appear in this unfavorable context, Miss Scott ran down the list:
One of these listings was for an appearance, by direction of my employer, which was perfectly proper at the time. Another was osten- sibly a series of benefits for orphaned children. As soon as I found out otherwise I discontinued my activity. Still another involved the use of
20
my name three years after I played a benefit for a group which there- after merged with one that developed a bad name. A fourth advertised that I was a guest of honor at a dinner I never went to or even heard of. Three others I refused to join. The remaining two I never heard of.
The "guest of honor" and three other listings in Red Channels were supported by reference to the House Committee's own "Ap- pendix IX." Did the Committee decide that if "Appendix IX" could be so wrong about one person the document should be re- examined? No. Did it apologize, in this one instance? Again, no. The members were more interested in whether or not Red Channels was accurate in its citation of the document. If it was, why was Miss Scott complaining? Miss Scott, not too irrelevantly, pointed out that it was of little consequence that Red Channels was accurate if "Appendix IX" was not. But the Committee said it was just ad- vancing a courtesy to her and was not interested in "Appendix IX."
21
The First Cases
IN RADIO AND TELEVISION, blacklisting began in a blaze of pub- licity and became an institution in secrecy.
From 1949 until '51 a series of front-page cases spotlighted the hiring policies of the networks, sponsors and agencies in New York. In the William Sweets, Jean Muir, Ireene Wicker and Elmer Rice cases, the public was involved in a national debate on the question. Each new development was reported in the theatrical trade press and the nation's newspapers. Editorials were written, meetings were held, organized groups took sides. But by the end of 1951, it was clear to the industry's leaders that a public debate about political screening would arouse a controversy almost as distasteful as any centered on the alleged pro-Communist sympathies of producers, directors and actors.
There was no conspiratorial decision on the part of radio-tv management — there was simply a Gentlemen's Agreement to keep silence. The industry decided that the public debate must come to an end. It accepted blacklisting as a burden of its day-to-day ex- istence but, for good reasons, decided that this fact must be kept secret. Blacklisting was institutionalized behind closed doors.
When General Foods fired the television actress Jean Muir from her role in "The Aldrich Family," protests came in from two com- peting groups. One set of critics threatened to boycott General Foods if Jean Muir appeared as Henry Aldrich's mother; another threatened a boycott if the actress were fired. Either way, the com- pany stood to lose customers. More than that, General Foods ran
22
the risk of having its name associated with a bitter political con- troversy. If, to satisfy its right-wing critics, it decided that Jean Muir could not work, liberal pressure groups would denounce it for violating American tradition. If it attempted to stand by that tradition and retain the actress, it faced the danger of being charged with indifference to national security.
The resolution — for General Foods and ultimately for the entire industry of networks, advertising agencies, sponsors and packagers — was to placate the right-wing group and silence the liberals. The strategic key was secrecy. If there were a discreet check into the background of employees before they were hired, then the local groups of the American Legion, the Catholic War Veterans, or the readers of Counterattack would have no cause to write letters or phone in their protests. And since there would be no firings, be- cause controversial persons were not hired in the first place, the liberal groups would be frustrated.
The inevitable result of such a solution was the institutionalizing of blacklisting. Some advertising agencies, like Batten, Barton, Durstine and Osborn, appointed executives to serve as "security officers." At the Columbia Broadcasting System a vice president was appointed to implement the network's policy. At the National Broadcasting Company and a number of advertising agencies, legal departments were entrusted with this duty. One of the larger packagers under fire set up a "white list." A new profession was developed. Independent "consultants," like the publishers of Counterattack and Vincent Hartnett (the keeper of File 13, a. land of expanded Red Channels) , made a business out of servicing spon- sors and agencies who did not have a full-time executive on the job.
Political discrimination had existed in the radio industry before 1949. The Communists themselves exerted considerable influence over certain shows. On these programs, Party members and their sympathizers found work easy to come by; their enemies were often
23
out in the cold. Various sponsors intervened from time to time to bar certain persons on political grounds. A well-known radio producer remembers being told not to use Mrs. Roosevelt, or anyone like her, on a quiz panel long before blacklisting was insti- tutionalized. Yet this kind of discrimination was informal and personal. It was accepted as one of the normal hazards in a highly competitive industry. Systematic political screening did not begin until some time in late 1950 or early '51, though its origins date back to '49.
In the spring of that year, William Sweets, a well-known radio director employed by the Phillips H. Lord packaging firm in New York, was told that the sponsors of the two shows he worked on had raised questions about his political associations. Sweets later said publicly that he was forced to resign. A group called the Voice of Freedom Committee took an interest in his case and loudly pro- tested the forced resignation. (Later, attendance at Voice of Free- dom rallies for Sweets was noted on various dossiers as evidence of pro-Communist sympathy.) All this was widely publicized.
Then, in the fall of 1950, a series of Red Channels cases became public. Jean Muir was dropped from the Aldrich show; Ireene Wicker, the Singing Lady, had her television program cancelled; Gypsy Rose Lee* and Hazel Scott were under attack. Around the same time, CBS, the Young and Rubicam agency and General Foods (sponsor in the Jean Muir case) began to discuss the difn-
* Miss Lee was attacked by Edward damage, a prominent Chicago Legionnaire. She had been cited in Red Channels for collaborating with four groups labelled Red. When the charge was made, she drew up a list of about 300 of her benefit appearances which Red Channels failed to mention. "Entertainers are always being asked to help causes, and they all sound innocuous," she stated. "Should we wire our Congressmen to investigate before we do a benefit performance? I'm not a Red and never have been."
Robert E. Kintner, president of the American Broadcasting Company, refused to act on damage's complaint, stating that he would not accept Red Channels as gospel. He demanded that damage provide "proof that Gypsy is a Communist." damage could only refer to Red Channels, and the case ended there.
24
culties surrounding the employment of Philip Loeb, who played Jake on "The Goldbergs." These cases attracted headlines.
In 1951 the McCarran Internal Security Subcommittee held hearings on the "Subversive Infiltration of Radio, Television and the Entertainment Industry." Two radio writers invoked the Fifth Amendment at this hearing. A number of friendly witnesses told of Communist efforts to blacklist anti-Communists in the industry. When the Committee released an edited version of the hearings (immediately before a Radio Writers Guild election in the fall of 1952), the story hit the front pages.
By 1952, a writer, actor, director or producer listed in Red Channels, cited in Counterattack or otherwise charged with Com- munist sympathies found it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get work without first being cleared. By this time political screen- ing was almost universally practiced on Madison Avenue. An elaborate blacklisting machinery had been set up. But in the cases which arose before 1952 the elements were all present.
In the late Forties an executive at the Phillips H. Lord office in New York received a job-application from a young Navy veteran named Vincent Hartnett. Hartnett was hired by the radio packag- ing firm.
One of the men with whom Hartnett worked at the Lord office was Bill Sweets, who had many friends in the radio field and was generally regarded as a top director. Sweets was in charge of "Gangbusters" and "Counterspy." His blacklisting troubles began one day when he was informed by a Lord executive that Clarence Francis, president of General Foods, and Walter Mack, of Pepsi- Cola — sponsors of the Sweets shows — had received letters charg- ing that the programs were being directed by a Communist who hired other Communists and discriminated against anti-Commu- nists. For three weeks the Lord office dealt with these sponsors and their agencies (Young & Rubicam for General Foods; Biow for
25
Pepsi-Cola) in an effort to solve the problem. But eventually the packaging firm executives decided that they had to choose between Sweets and the sponsors. The company felt it could not afford to lose two such big accounts. Sweets was asked to turn in his resignation.
The director was permitted to remain at his job until the season was completed, but his right to name his own casting lists was limited immediately. There were rumors in the office at the time that Hartnett was exercising an influence over the choice of actors for the shows, but they have never been substantiated. In any event, during the same period Hartnett began to write as a specialist on Communist infiltration into the radio-tv industry. It was widely known that an anonymous article on that subject which appeared in The Sign, a Catholic monthly published hi New Jersey, was written by him. And in 1950, Hartnett collaborated with the editors of Counterattack on Red Channels.
During the summer of 1949, Sweets was out of New York. The Radio Directors Guild tried to negotiate his case with the Lord office but failed. Earlier, Sweets had resigned his post as National President of that Guild when he was called upon to sign a non- Communist affidavit.* In announcing Sweets' resignation, Nicky Burnett, executive secretary of the Radio Directors, had described him as a "fighter against communism." (Sweets remained a mem- ber of the Guild hi good standing after he left the presidency.)
That same summer Sweets was approached by the Voice of Free- dom Committee and asked to appear at a rally in New York. The Committee, which had been organized to support liberal com-
* Sweets later stated: "The only unions whose officers are required to sign the affidavit are those which desire the service of the National Labor Relations Board. The Union of which I was international president, the Radio and Television Directors Guild, has had no need up to the present time of the Labor Relations Board's services, and therefore has not filed non-Communist affidavits with the Board . . . My reason for not signing such an affidavit was and is that once people start asking for affidavits, they sometimes don't know when to stop."
26
mentators and harass "reactionaries," used more or less the same techniques the pro-blacklisting groups later relied on. When a "liberal" commentator was dropped, or a "reactionary" newscaster appeared on the air, the Voice of Freedom screamed and its fol- lowers directed their protests to stations or networks.
The VOF meeting for Sweets was held at the Hotel Abbey in New York, August 11, 1949. Variety reported that about 200 writers, directors and actors attended the meeting. (Later, when they were trying to clear themselves, many had to "explain" why they attended.) In his speech at the meeting, Sweets charged that the industry was developing a blacklisting policy. He charged that the American Legion maintained a "list" of actors and actresses in Hollywood (quoting columnist Jimmy Fidler as his authority). "As I see it," he told his supporters, "a blacklist is a device, per- fectly legal in most instances — whereby the principle of 'exclu- sivity' may be exercised. It is a list of people who are to be ex- cluded, and it is the list that is usually kept secret. Kept secret because in a democracy to appear to be exclusive isn't the thing to do." He concluded: "Nor is it loyalty to the United States that is really questioned in the case of persons whose names are on black- lists today. It is rather their loyalty to ideas of free action — loyalty I am convinced in my case — to the ideas of the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Association of Advertising Agencies ... I do not intend, at the request of some sponsors, to give up my sponsorship of meetings such as this — of May Day parades, or of world peace."
Later that fall the Voice of Freedom Committee held another protest meeting at Town Hall and circulated a leaflet which repro- duced newspaper stories about blacklisting, statements from various theatrical unions and guilds, and carried a message from Sweets. (This rally was also cited in Red Channels as a Communist undertaking. )
In Sweets' speech at the first rally he made no charges against
27
Hartnett by name. Whatever connection is made between the Sweets firing and Hartnett's own activity at the time is largely a deduction drawn from the "talent consultant's" later operations. Nevertheless, it is clear that Hartnett's association with the Lord company, and his experience in the Sweets case, contributed to the thesis he expanded on in The Sign, Red Channels, American Mer- cury and the American Legion Magazine.
The case of William Sweets foreshadowed what was to come. The central point was the proposition that Communists were using their influence in the industry to hire their friends and discriminate against their enemies. This allegation persisted throughout the de- velopment of blacklisting and continued long after most of the people charged with Communist sympathies could no longer find work. As late as the summer of 1955, Godfrey P. Schmidt, presi- dent of AWARE, Inc., repeated the charge in a dispute with John Crosby, radio-tv writer for the New York Herald Tribune.
But more important than the actual personalities involved in the Sweets affair was the reaction within the industry itself. Significant companies were concerned: General Foods, Pepsi-Cola, Young & Rubicam, Biow and Phillips H. Lord, Inc. Their behavior was the first indication of how relatively easy it would be for outside pres- sure groups to gain significant control over hiring and firing.
The sponsors were reacting to a few letters. There was no evi- dence of an organized boycott; only a handful of listeners were protesting. But the officials decided to act on the complaints and called in the advertising agencies to assist them. Within three weeks it was generally agreed that Sweets should be asked to resign. On the part of the packager, the decision was clearly based on commer- cial considerations — a fear of losing two major accounts — and not on any dissatisfaction with the director himself or with the way he was casting his shows.
The radio-tv industry, of course, is singularly susceptible to pres- sure. Hollywood certainly goes out of its way to avoid offending
28
any significant section of the public. But the film industry has been willing to deal with controversial subjects (racial prejudice, for example) as long as the prospect of a heightened interest in some quarters promises to compensate for moviegoers who might be lost. The radio-tv industry, though, is devoted to advertising. Sponsors seek "100% acceptability" for their products. Any group, however small, which is alienated because of the content of a radio or television show, or because of a performer on the show, must be placated.
The Sweets affair differed from most of the blacklisting cases which came later in so far as it was allowed to become public. In 1949 it seemed to be an isolated incident. Red Channels — and the Korean War — were yet to come. The full development of black- listing would take two or three years. Still it now seems clear that the ultimate outcome was inevitable from the beginning. For if the industry would surrender to pressure in 1949, then as the Cold War intensified (and the pressures intensified), it was only a matter of time until systematic political screening would become an institution.
During the first year of Red Channels' existence, blacklisting developed in contradictory fashion. At one point General Foods, the sponsor involved in both the Sweets and Jean Muir cases, an- nounced that it would no longer fire performers simply because they were "controversial." But by the middle of 1951, that brave statement seemed in retrospect to have been merely a momentary challenge to an overwhelming trend. Throughout 1950 various pressure groups and powerful individuals combined their efforts in a campaign to make Red Channels a near absolute criterion for hir- ing in the radio-tv industry. By and large the campaign succeeded.
"The Aldrich Family" was a television program sponsored by General Foods. In August, 1950, Young & Rubicam, General Foods' advertising agency for the Jell-O show, announced that Jean
29
Muir, a former movie actress, had been assigned the role of Mother Aldrich. Miss Muir was to make her first appearance on August 27. Shortly after the announcement that she would join the show, an editor of Counterattack, Theodore Kirkpatrick, called several per- sons and asked them to organize a protest. Jean Muir was listed in Red Channels. As a result of the protests, Miss Muir was dropped from the show, paid the full amount called for by her contract, and another former movie actress, Nancy Carroll, took her place.
The people who made the phone calls resulting in the Muir fir- ing were typical of the individuals and pressure groups that are still the backbone of blacklisting. For the most part they are vocal sup- porters of the far right wing of American politics. Several of them later emerged as vociferous partisans of Senator McCarthy. Though few in number, they represented the threat of a potential boycott and a controversy that could only be anathema to any corporation intent on pleasing everybody.
Among those Kirkpatrick called was Mrs. Hester McCullough of Greenwich, Connecticut, wife of a Time editor. Mrs. McCul- lough had recently been involved in a legal suit with Paul Draper, the dancer, and the harmonica player Larry Adler. She had ac- cused these two entertainers of pro-Communist sympathy.
Rabbi Benjamin Schultz, of the Joint Committee Against Com- munism in New York, called to protest Miss Muir's appearance and claimed he was speaking for two million Americans. Neither in the Muir case nor in those that came up later did the industry at- tempt to check on whether those who acted as organization spokes- men had received authorization from their memberships. There is little doubt, though, that in most cases they would have been given general support. But how many people were aroused was hardly relevant, for to sponsors even a small group represents a potential threat.
In 1952 Merle Miller reported in The Judges and the Judged that General Foods hired Dr. George Gallup's research organization
30
to make a survey of the actual impact of the Muir case. This was during a violent controversy debated in newspapers throughout the United States. Miller quoted an official spokesman for General Foods:
Less than 40% [of the cross section] had ever heard of the Muir affair. And of those that had, less than three percent could relate the name of General Foods or the product involved, Jell-O, with the name of Muir. They tied up the name of Muir hazily with General Mills, even the Bell Telephone Company. To check up further, we telephoned several General Foods sales offices in other cities like Chicago. We asked "How has the Muir publicity affected our sales?" The answer invariably was, "Muir? Who's Muir?"
The General Foods sales offices did not know the name Jean Muir but the name was to become symbolic in the radio-tv industry. Her firing was the first directly attributable to Red Channels.
Today Miss Muir, though cleared, no longer appears on televi- sion. "A performer who has even been unfairly charged with com- munism — as Jean Muir was — is like a bruised apple," a tv execu- tive explained not long ago. "You understand don't you? — the brown spot remains." Miss Muir — who was celebrating her twen- tieth year in show business on the very day she was fired — has turned her energies to social work.
The Muir affair reveals something about the pressures which beset the industry. The case of Ireene Wicker is interesting for what it tells about Red Channels and the attitudes of those professionally involved in agitating for political screening. Miss Wicker signed a contract to do a television show for the Kellogg Company hi Feb- ruary, 1949. The contract was renewed a year later. Then in June, 1950 her name was listed in Red Channels and in August the con- tract was cancelled.
When Red Channels came out, John Crosby, the radio-tv column- ist, telephoned Miss Wicker to tell her she was among those listed.
31
Later, Crosby wrote a column entitled "Any of You Children Been Subverted Recently?" He wrote:
Somebody put her name down on the Committee [for the re-election of Benjamin J. Davis] and she has been smeared like so many people are smeared nowadays ... In 1945 — her most suspicious activity — Miss Wicker loaned her house for a benefit for Spanish refugee chil- dren. Miss Wicker was under the misapprehension that children were essentially non-political animals . . .
After she discovered she had been "listed," Ireene Wicker de- cided to visit the Counterattack office and talk with Theodore Kirkpatrick. Kirkpatrick discussed the Daily Worker story which numbered her among those who signed a nominating petition for Benjamin Davis, Communist candidate for the New York City Council in 1945. Miss Wicker told the Counterattack editor she had not been in New York City at the time the petition was circu- lated early in 1945, had never even heard of Benjamin Davis and certainly could not recall ever having signed a petition for his nomination. Kirkpatrick answered that he had reprinted the facts as they appeared in the Daily Worker.
He shifted the conversation then to a discussion of what Miss Wicker had done to express her opposition of communism. She cited several patriotic activities — she conducted an "I'm glad I am an American because. . . ." contest for children, she recorded a series based on American history entitled "Sing a Song of History," etc. But Kirkpatrick was not impressed. Then the actress men- tioned that she had allowed her only son to enlist in the Royal Canadian Air Force before he was 18. The boy, who was shot down in Europe, joined up in 1940, during the Hitler-Stalin pact, a time when American Communists were engaged in their "Yanks Are Not Coming" campaign. But even that was not enough. Miss Wicker left the Counterattack office without convincing Kirkpatrick.
Later she obtained a court order so her lawyer could examine
32
all 30,000 names on the nominating petitions for Benjamin Davis. Her name was not among those listed. In October, Counterattack reported:
Ireene Wicker . . . has made the following statement to Counter- attack: "I emphatically declare I am not, never have been and never could be a Communist or Communist sympathizer in any sense of these terms. The fundamental doctrine of Communism is abhorrent to me. It is in direct opposition to the American principles I have always upheld and advocated." The statement in Red Channels that the Daily Worker of September 15, 1945 reported her as a sponsor of the Artists, Writers and Professional Division of the Committee for the Re-election of Benjamin J. Davis is true, Miss Wicker says. She states, however, that she was not aware of this fact until publication of Red Channels. She absolutely denies the Daily Worker report that she was a sponsor of this committee. She also denies categorically that she ever supported Davis for re-election, that she gave his campaign committee permission to use her name or that she knew her name had been used by the committee. Miss Wicker recently wrote a letter to the Daily Worker demanding a retraction of its report that she sponsored the Davis committee. She received a reply from David Freedman of the law firm of Unger, Freedman and Fleischer, attorneys for the Daily Worker, which states that the Worker story was based on a news release from the Davis committee which did not contain the signatures of the sponsors listed. Freedman said that the Daily Worker "regrets very much if that publication contained any error of fact."
Counterattack's action in printing Miss Wicker's statement, and those of other Red Channels listees, was picked up by the New York press. Part of the newsletter's release, as quoted in the New York Post for October 27, 1950, said: ''Counterattack wishes to repeat that Red Channels did not call Miss Wicker, or any other person mentioned in the report, a Communist or a Communist sym- pathizer." The Daily News radio and television column for the 27th, written by Ben Gross, was headed "Ireene Wicker Cleared." Gross concluded his piece : "Last night, reports circulated in broadcasting circles that both Miss Muir and Miss Wicker would soon return to
33
the air." And the next day, the New York Mirror commented "Ireene Wicker . . . will be back on the air any day now. She has been cleared of charges that she was a sponsor of a committee . . ."
But years were to pass before Ireene Wicker actually returned to the air. She never regained the professional standing she had before Red Channels was published.
When her agent tried to sell the Singing Lady show during 1951 and '52 he heard: "What about Red Channels? We wouldn't touch her with a ten foot pole." Her only work during this period was a radio series on a small station in North Adams, Massachusetts. (There were no protests.) Miss Wicker was permitted to make guest appearances. She was once interviewed on the Tex and Jinx show, but after a second program with them had been scheduled, NBC called to tell her it was cancelled. Finally in 1953 she was given an ABC show which went on the air Sundays at 11 :30 in the morning. This program continued through 1954 under the sponsor- ship of Little Lady Toiletries. During the entire run of the program only one protesting letter was received. The program was finally dropped but Red Channels was not connected with the decision to give it up. Since then Miss Wicker has not had a regular show.
Miss Wicker's post-Red Channels experience illustrates a prob- lem faced by many performers who are blacklisted and later cleared. At the time of her trouble, the Singing Lady was riding a wave of popularity built up over a period of years. Then, just as television was beginning to boom and it was very important that she stay in the public eye, she was fired. Though she has long since been cleared, it is impossible for her to regain the years lost. The Red Channels experience has obviously had a permanent effect on her career.
On September 26, 1950, General Foods announced it was "tem- porarily" suspending the policy which led to the dismissal of Jean Muir. In making this statement the company also said that its
34
action had been prompted by the questions raised about Philip Loeb's employment on "The Goldbergs" show. Four letters had been received protesting Loeb's appearance. According to the press release, three were addressed to CBS, one to General Foods.
It seemed then that General Foods was resisting the growth of blacklisting and had decided that some kind of solution could be worked out. But at best, this was a surface impression. For in the statement accompanying the General Foods announcement there was a clear implication that the problem was anything but solved. General Foods said:
Discussions are now taking place in the industry to find a construc- tive solution to the broad problems growing out of such disloyalty charges. In view of this development and in consideration of any who are associated with our radio and television programs, General Foods will temporarily suspend application of the company's long standing policy covering use of controversial material and personalities. We will encourage and cooperate with any constructive effort towards a lasting solution which will be fair and equitable to all parties concerned.
Loeb remained on "The Goldbergs" from the fall of 1950 until spring, '51. During that period, meeting after meeting was held be- tween General Foods, CBS, Young and Rubicam, Gertrude Berg, the star and owner of the show, and others concerned with his problem. No "lasting solution" resulted from these "constructive efforts." Far from indicating that some candid method of dealing with blacklisting was in the offing, the General Foods' statement actually preluded the complete triumph of political screening.
Loeb once told about a meeting held during the period when he was on the air but still under fire. It took place in a room at the General Foods office. Clarence Francis, president of General Foods, and Frank Stanton, president of CBS, were there. Loeb arrived with Mrs. Berg. Francis asked him when he was going to clear himself and remove the cloud that hung over him. Loeb said he felt "doomed" when the suggestion was made. He had thought
35
it was going to be possible to solve his problem without passing through humiliating "clearance" procedures.
It all began in the summer of 1950. Mrs. Berg had been in Holly- wood making a film. When she returned to New York she was told about Red Channels; Loeb was among those listed. CBS was ex- pecting trouble and General Foods had already expressed concern. Nothing was definite, no decisions had been made, but some action would have to be taken. (If General Foods' policy statement in late September was accurate, only four protests had been received at this time; yet these four were enough to precipitate a crisis on the top level of the industry.)
Those close to Mrs. Berg at the time say she was shocked. She thought it "un-American" that anyone should demand Loeb be fired on the basis of unproved charges. General Foods had not threatened to cancel the show and Frank Stanton of CBS was sympathetic. During this period Mrs. Berg vigorously defended Loeb. Blacklist- ing was still a dirty word and the industry had not yet learned to live with it. Loeb rejected a suggestion that he make a speech over the Voice of America. He felt that this would involve compromis- ing his position; by going through even this much of a "clearance" procedure, he thought he would be giving support to those who made the charges against him in the first place. (He later denied under oath that he was a Communist. ) Eventually, Loeb did agree to make some public statements on communism, but they were not widely reported and did little to help.
The Goldbergs show, with Loeb playing Jake, ran for 39 weeks. During that time there were numerous meetings. Every 13th week the situation was completely reviewed and a new attempt to find a solution made — but all failed. No outside agency had yet moved in to take over the industry's responsibility for its own hiring policies. There were suggestions that an impartial board be set up to "judge" people like Loeb, but nothing came of them. Within the talent unions there was agitation for some kind of action, but the unions
36
were already so rent by factional struggles over the blacklist issue that, again, nothing was done.
When the Goldbergs show ended its regular season in the spring of 1951 it was dropped by General Foods and moved over to NBC. And when it returned to the air, Phil Loeb was no longer playing Jake. This, then, was the final solution of the problem. In the New York Journal- American for August 25, 1951, radio-television columnist Jack O'Brian announced what everyone knew: the real reason "The Goldbergs" had lost its sponsor on CBS was Loeb's presence on the program. O'Brian noted that Phil Loeb was gone "after a long and luxurious hiatus in [CBS's] pink-tinged boudoir."
Loeb reached a contract settlement with Mrs. Berg in January, 1952. But as the late George Heller, an official of the television artists union, said at the time: "And so a settlement was made, a financial settlement but not a settlement of the issue." "The issue," Loeb stated in a memo to the national board of the Television Authority, "is my blacklisting. I did not come to my union for a financial settlement ... I came for truth and justice. I am still seeking truth and justice ... I am deprived of work because of a cowardly, furtive smear campaign. The issue has not been settled ... I claim that although innocent I have been ousted from my work and hounded from my profession by a dirty, undercover job."
After he was dropped from "The Goldbergs," Loeb worked in the theater. He appeared in "Time Out for Ginger" on Broadway, and went on tour with the show. In Chicago, Edward damage* of the American Legion campaigned against Loeb's appearance and attempted to organize a boycott. But the incident did not develop into a public controversy, and the play ran for ten months.
* damage, long a member of various American Legion anti-subversive commit- tees, is the leading spokesman for his point of view in the Chicago area. During recent years damage has organized campaigns against various theatrical people. Of late, however, most of these campaigns have failed. "He overplayed his hand," one Chicago newspaperman said of him. "Nobody pays much attention to Ed any more."
37
Yet Loeb never regained confidence in himself. He was bowed down by family problems. He felt that he had been victimized by those who set themselves up as guardians of the Republic. He grew increasingly depressed and embittered. Finally, in September, 1955, he went off to a hotel room and took an overdose of sleeping pills — and in a few of the news stories about his suicide, there was some mention of his blacklisting difficulties.
On November 13, 1951, Elmer Rice announced his resignation from a group of playwrights who were doing shows for the "Celan- ese Theater." "I now find," Rice wrote, "that the names of actors selected by you [Stellar Enterprises, the packaging corporation] are submitted for approval to the Ellington advertising agency, whose client, the Celanese Corporation of America, is the commercial sponsor of this program. The agency, it appears, then submits these names to its attorney, Walter Socolow, for 'clearance' from the point of view of what is euphemistically called 'public relations.' What this means in effect is that Mr. Socolow conducts an inquiry into the alleged political opinions and activities of the actors and bases his acceptance or rejection upon his judgment of the pro- priety of their political beliefs." Rice went on to claim that his resig- nation was motivated by the fact that several actors had been turned down, on political grounds, for the leading role in his play "Counsellor at Law."
Rice concluded: "The air does not belong to the Ellington agency nor to the Celanese Corporation nor to the networks. ... It is about tune that this shocking situation be made clear to the American people."
In the controversy that followed, specific facts hi Rice's charges were vehemently denied. Yet no one questioned his basic descrip- tion of the blacklisting process. In replying to Rice, Jesse T. Elling- ton, president of the advertising agency, made an almost classic statement of the industry's position. He held that he and his agency
38
had made every attempt to heed the playwright's demands in casting — "We've tried to lean over backwards to live up to the best tradi- tions of the theatre and to avoid any of that political thing hi casting . . . But when you get somebody who may cause a lot of bad pub- licity for your program, you do have to be a little careful. It's an ordinary business safeguard."
This was to be the industry's rationale as political screening de- veloped into an institution: first a reference to the traditions of the theater (and, often enough, to those of America) , then a word about "business safeguards." In almost every instance the safeguards were the overriding considerations; the "political thing" became all- important in casting.
Later that same year, in December, 1951, Elmer Rice expanded on his comments in a letter written after the death of the well known actress Mady Christians (whose last months were made mis- erable by her inclusion in Red Channels). Rice wrote: "It's shock- ing. It's gone beyond Red Channels. Everybody has a private list. Anybody's career can be destroyed. Crass commercial cowardice has become more important than standing up for the principles of liberty. I'm hoping that various actors unions will start taking definite stands."
The Authors League of America decided to look into the black- listing situation after Rice spoke out. A committee made up of Ruth Goetz, Laura Hobson and Rice himself was appointed to in- vestigate the situation — but "only with respect to authors listed in Red Channels." The committee sent out a questionnaire to the 51 writers who were listed; about 30 answered. Three mam lines of questioning were pursued. Has Red Channels had an adverse effect upon your employment? Does blacklisting exist? Are you willing to testify before the Federal Communications Commission?
Almost all who answered were acutely aware of blacklisting; some said they had not been personally affected. At a meeting of the Authors League held after the investigation, novelist John
39
Hersey summed up the results by saying that the League had posi- tive proof of blacklisting. But the most significant answer was this : the majority of writers who stated they knew for sure that black- listing was rife also declined to testify before the Federal Commu- nications Commission. They gave as their reason the fact that they could not afford that kind of publicity.
This, too, was an indication of what lay ahead. Because political screening has been carried on behind the scenes, its opponents are often afraid to participate in any public opposition. The dangers of reprisal are too great.
It was impossible for those interested in supporting blacklisting to let Rice's charges go unanswered. Counterattack replied al- most immediately. The newsletter began by quoting Rice's state- ment that blacklisting "is an ugly blot upon American life and an ugly threat to American liberty. . . . why I'd be willing to use Paul Robeson if there was a place for him in the show." In dealing with Rice's charges, Counterattack made no effort to deny that a system of political screening had been set up. Instead, the newsletter fol- lowed a technique it had developed earlier — it questioned the playwright's motives and tied him in with communism.
The Counterattack editors wrote:
Now let's look at Rice's record and see how well qualified he is to judge what should or should not be done about Communists and fronters. Here are some of the fronts Rice was member of, or whose functions he backed, in the late Thirties and early Forties. [11 organiza- tions were cited]. In more recent years, Rice has backed fronts like . . . [four more] ... a few years ago he backed resolution to exclude Communists from board of American Civil Liberties Union. But now he still can't see anything wrong with hiring Paul Robeson or any other Communist for a radio or tv show and paying such persons big money which they would use to support Stalin's cause while Communists slaughter American prisoners of war in Korea. The Communist line press has gone all out in support of Rice. He is a hero, a martyr, a defender of its phony brand of "freedom."
40
Counterattack's response was as typical as that of the advertising agency. It could serve as a basic rationale for all groups and indi- viduals who supported political screening. First, the fact that such screening was carried out was not denied, although an argument was centered around the use of the word "blacklist." Secondly, the opponents of the system were checked for past political affiliations. Thirdly, there was a statement about the use to which money paid alleged Communist entertainers would be put. Finally, there was an attempt to point out that opposition to blacklisting "helped the Communists."
Counterattack continued this last line of argument in an issue a few weeks later. Speaking of Mady Christian's death, the news- letter wrote: "Playwright Elmer Rice, who is now a hero of CP because he would use known Communists on radio and tv, paved the way for a propaganda treatment of her death hi a letter to The New York Times 'Drama Mailbag.' "
In February, 1952, Rice was reconciled with the Celanese Theater. The Ellington agency stated it agreed with him about op- posing the blacklisting trend, that it had not used lists in the past, and had no intention of using them in the future. Rice felt he had scored a victory and Counterattack glumly agreed with him.
In the February 29 issue of the newsletter, there was an article beginning "What Do You Think of These Celanese Stars?" Two allegedly pro-Communist performers were listed. Counterattack concluded:
What do the directors of the Celanese Corporation of America think of this and what do they intend to do about it? Are they willing part- ners to Rice's statement that he would feature and thus give their stockholders' money to an identified Communist? This is a matter of personal responsibility that they cannot evade. They should take a public stand on it.
In the long run, the Rice incident had no lasting impact. But it did point up the existence of blacklisting. Whether or not Rice's
41
charges were accurate in every detail, they provided a good picture of how blacklisting was actually used in the casting of radio and tv shows. And the reply of the Ellington agency — "but when you get somebody who may cause a lot of bad publicity for your program you have to be careful" — amounts to an admission of the basic charges Elmer Rice made.
By 1952, blacklisting was generally accepted in the industry. The frantic days of the Sweets case, the headlines of the Muir affair, the editorials written about Ireene Wicker were a thing of the past. The industry's solution to the problem was firmly institutionalized: don't hire controversial performers and you won't have to fire them.
Worst of all, the operation was carried out, for the most part, by people who were personally and privately opposed to it.
One of the most controversial questions in radio-tv has centered around the blacklisting of anti-Communists. When Merle Miller's The Judges and the Judged appeared in 1952, under the sponsor- ship of the American Civil Liberties Union, the report was attacked in the pages of The New Leader by Merlyn S. Pitzele, then an ACLU director. Pitzele charged, among other things, that Miller had ignored sources of information on the subject of blacklisting of anti-Communists (in particular, that he had not consulted with Morton Wishengrad, a knowledgeable radio writer), and that he had treated the whole question hi a brief, off-hand way which dis- torted the relationship between the two kinds of blacklisting.
Miller's conclusion had been that "there would seem to be very little doubt that the Communist Party has been as active in radio and television as in the rest of the entertainment field. There can be no argument about the fact that, in the past at least, many small-1 liberals have cooperated with the Party, possibly even to the extent of discriminating against the Party's enemies when it came to jobs. It is certain that in some circles it has been as costly to have been a premature anti-Communist as it was in others to have been pre- 42
maturely anti-fascist." Further, Miller had stated that ". . . not a single instance of such proof [of the blacklisting of anti-Commu- nists] was uncovered."
A special committee of the ACLU Board reported that Miller had unintentionally failed to follow up certain sources of information, and that the "author should have been less dogmatic" in asserting that there was no single instance of proof of the blacklisting of anti- Communists. This report was later adopted by the full Board of Directors of the Civil Liberties Union.
In 1951, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee heard testi- mony on the infiltration of Communists into the radio industry. It is important to note that the only testimony released to the public fell into two categories : first, that of witnesses generally associated with the far right whig in the industry; second, that of "unfriendly" witnesses who invoked the Fifth Amendment. The testimony of others who answered all questions but were identified with the liberal or "left-wing" faction in the union was not made public. In addition, one witness later stated in a letter to the Committee that he had been promised his evidence would not be made public and had been "led" in the course of questioning to use certain phrases which gave a false impression of the meaning he intended to give.
During the course of these hearings, Ruth Adams Knight, a leader of the "right- whig" faction in the Radio Writers Guild, testified on the blacklisting of anti-Communists. Because of her long associa- tion with the right wing within the writers union, and because hers is one of the few public statements on the subject, Miss Knight's remarks are worth study.
Miss KNIGHT: I think evidence will be submitted to you that there are important shows, both in radio and television, where it is quite impossible for anyone who is not a left-winger to obtain a hearing and to work and to write . . .
SENATOR WATKINS: You must have in mind something, and can you make a general reference to it without going into too much detail . . .
43
Miss KNIGHT: I can back it up with many illustrations, but I would have to say what I am reporting to you is a general impression of the industry and there is no way of my being able to come here and say to you that a certain director refused to buy shows from certain people who were right-wing because they were right-wing, and he can say he didn't buy them because they weren't good scripts, and there is no possible proof.
SENATOR WATKINS: That is the thing we are up against, you see ... But we must have something more than just a lot of conclusions . . . Miss KNIGHT: What I can say to you is this, that in the industry, it is generally conceded that there are certain shows on which only extreme left-wing writers can work. SENATOR WATKINS: Can you name those shows?
Miss Knight went on to name several shows, and even one net- work, which she alleged had at one time or another discriminated against anti-Communists. In this part of her testimony, however, she indicated that she was talking about the employability of mem- bers of "We, the Undersigned," the right-wing caucus in the Writers Guild.
Miss Knight's testimony is quoted mainly to establish the diffi- culty which any investigator encounters in trying to find "concrete instances" of the blacklisting of anti-Communists. In general, it is true that "there is no way of ... being able to ... say ... that a certain director refused to buy shows from certain people who were right-wing because they were right-wing, and he can say he didn't buy them because they weren't good scripts, and there is no possible proof."
This analysis was recently corroborated by Paul Milton, a radio writer and board member of AWARE, Inc. Milton pointed out that there is no Red Channels in the case of blacklisting of anti-Com- munists, i.e., no fixed point of reference which can be used as a dividing line when considering the patterns of employment for anti-Communists. The writer referred to by Merlyn Pitzele, Morton Wishengrad, has made the same point.
44
At the very outset then, it must be understood that it is prac- tically impossible to find specific, incontrovertible evidence of the blacklisting of anti-Communists. This point is agreed upon by both liberal and right-wing anti-Communists. The non-employment of an anti-Communist may be due to factors other than his anti- communism. For example, one actor often cited as the victim of a Communist blacklist is also alleged to have become difficult to work with precisely because of his political activities. Another performer who is frequently cited as a victim was widely criticized for encouraging racial stereotypes. There were protests against this performer's appearances by a number of anti-bias groups. (Some of these groups of course may have had communistic ties.)
There is no way to ascertain which factors were, or are, respon- sible for the "unemployability" of these two performers. In the case of alleged Communists and Communist sympathizers, how- ever, there are definite lists, definite dates, etc. to provide a point of reference. It would seem, then, that the charges made against Merle Miller were somewhat unjust. The discrimination against anti-Communists was of such an informal nature that it is prac- tically impossible to cite specific instances which would not be challenged by someone.
It can be established beyond question, though, that there was never any network-wide or agency-wide blacklisting of anti-Com- munists, even during the period when Communists were presumably at the height of their power. Take, as an example, the television appearances of Vinton Hay worth in 1949-50. Hay worth is gener- ally accepted as a leading "anti-Communist" in the special sense in which that word is used by Counterattack, AWARE, Inc., etc. (The source of this information is the Ross Reports, a listing of talent employed in television from 1949 to the present.)
On January 21, 1950, Hayworth appeared on "Hollywood Screen Test," an ABC show. Interestingly enough, this same program subsequently employed Selena Royle (on February 4, 1950) and
45
Mady Christians (February 11, 1950), both of whom are listed in Red Channels. On March 20, 1950, Hay worth appeared on "Lights Out," an NBC show, and on March 27, on "Silver Theatre," a CBS show. In the Ross Reports' listings of employment from Sep- tember, 1949 to April, 1950 (Ross Reports, May 7, 1950), Hay- worth is one of the actors with the most frequent listings. In addi- tion to the shows reported above, he appeared in "Lights Out" (twice), the "Kraft Theatre," the "Philco Theatre," the "Silver Theatre," "The Clock," the "Chevrolet Tele-Theatre," all between the fall of 1949 and the summer of 1950.
When dealing with this period, it is interesting to note how politi- cal lines cross and re-cross on various shows. Thus, Hayworth, Mady Christians and Selena Royle were used by the same producer. Conrad Nagel, a veteran anti-Communist, appeared on "The Silver Theatre," but so did Marsha Hunt (who was named in Red Chan- nels and was later blacklisted) .
It has been said that the Communists let certain anti-Communists work as a "fig-leaf" to hide their activities. But it seems unlikely that this explains Hayworth's pattern. Hayworth has long been one of the most articulate spokesmen for a right-wing anti-Communist point of view in the industry. The fact that he was constantly hired at a time when the Communists were riding high would seem to establish beyond question that no industry-wide, network-wide, or agency-wide blacklisting of anti-Communists was then in existence.
To continue with Hayworth. It may well be true that he has lost some employment in recent years. But in a sense this is a case of the engineer's being hoist on his own petard. Hayworth's activities within AWARE, Inc. have now made him a "controversial person- ality." More than one anti-Communist producer has said that he would not hire him because of this fact. They feel that Hayworth's presence within a cast would cause trouble, be divisive, etc.
It seems possible to conclude, therefore, that the "blacklisting of anti-Communists" did not proceed on any organized and institu-
46
tional basis. There was no Red Channels, no industry-wide deci- sions, no open agitation for screening, no silent acceptance. It was largely a back-scratching operation. This is in no way to imply that there has been no discrimination against right-wing anti- Communists.
In discovering individual patterns of the refusal to hire anti- Communists, or at least anti-Communists of the right-wing persua- sion, one is confronted with an extremely complicated, if not con- tradictory, situation. In her testimony, for example, Ruth Adams Knight charged that "Studio One" would have "a possible one per- son from a group like 'We the Undersigned' and almost everyone else on the other side."
A check of the writers used on "Studio One" in the months im- mediately before Ruth Adams Knight testified (April 28, 1951) is revealing. There was, indeed, one writer, Irve Tunick, who was a member of "We the Undersigned." In February, the show used Lois Jacoby, a writer who was later to follow Tunick out of Tele- vision Authority when a West Coast functionary of that organization invoked the Fifth Amendment. The remaining writers (from Janu- ary 1 to March 26) are not well known as supporters of any left- wing faction. Indeed, the writer (and producer) whose work was most consistently used on the show, Worthington Miner, had a repu- tation for staying out of union disputes, industry politics, etc. On January 16, 1950, "Studio One" used Butterfly McQueen, an ac- tress often cited as the victim of an anti-Communist blacklist.
Thus, one of Ruth Adams Knight's specific cases would seem to be questionable.
On the other hand, there are shows where the employment record indicates a constant use of people associated with the left wing. In 1950-51, "Danger" used performers like Lee Grant, Morris Carnovsky, Alan Manson, Lou Polan, John Randolph, Elliot Sullivan and others who have been accused of being antagonistic to the right wing, as well as writer Peter Lyon. Other shows during
47
the same period used such people with suspicious frequency, e.g., "Suspense," "Comedy Theater." It is also true that the casting lists of a show like "Danger" rarely reveal the names of persons who have been members of the right-wing anti-Communist groups.
A study of casting lists, therefore, bears out the oft-repeated charge that anti-Communists had difficulties in certain quarters. The important thing distinguishing the left-wing blacklisting oper- ation from the industry-wide steps taken later, is that the former was sporadic, informal and unorganized.
48
Blacklisting: An Institution
ONCE BLACKLISTING WAS INSTITUTIONALIZED, it expanded. This was an almost inevitable development. A highly placed executive at one of the largest Madison Avenue agencies — a man charged with screening the agency's employees — said not long ago that as soon as the principle was established that performers and writers should be checked for past political associations, the doors were thrown wide open. Blacklisting soon went far beyond the names in Red Channels. For if that book was accepted as a reliable source, there was no reason why Counterattack itself, the American Le- gion's Firing Line, the "listing" publications of Syracuse Post #41 of the Legion, and every other list, should not win acceptance. This was made all the more complicated by the structure of the radio-tv industry. In Hollywood, most hiring is concentrated in five or six big studios. But in radio-tv, advertising agencies, networks, program packagers and sponsors all have a voice in deciding who is to be used. The result is a multiplicity of lists and procedures, different policies on different networks, the creation of a secret and labyrinthine world of political screening. Thus it has often hap- pened that a television personality might be acceptable to agency and network, but not to this or that sponsor. Such a one, in the jargon that has grown up in the industry, is "greylisted." The "grey- listed" of course are blacklisted, but not completely — for every program on every network. Few persons are thoroughly blacklisted in this sense.
49
All this began with Red Channels. When that book appeared in 1950, columnist Ed Sullivan wrote:
With television going into its third big year, come this Fall, the entire industry is becoming increasingly aware of the necessity to plug all Commie propaganda loopholes. Network and station heads, with a tremendous financial stake, want no part of Commies or pinkos. Sponsors, sensitive in the extreme to blacklisting, want no part of Commies or their sympathizers. Advertising agencies, held responsible by sponsors for correct exercise of discretion in programming, want no controversy of any kind. For that reason, "Red Channels" listing of performers who, innocently or maliciously, are affiliated with Commie- front organizations will be a reference book in preparing any program.
Sullivan was wrong in predicting that the use of Red Channels would be general by the fall of 1950, but his over-all analysis was quite correct, especially in the motives he assigned to the industry, and his date for the complete triumph of political screening was only a year off. By the fall of 1951, almost every word hi the column had come true.
In May, 1954, Charles E. Martin, a radio-television producer and director, appeared before Judge Irving Saypol's court as a witness for the plaintiff in a suit brought by actor Joe Julian, a Red Channels listee, against the American Business Consultants, pub- lishers of the book.
Martin testified under oath about political screening in the indus- try. At the very outset, he was asked by Arthur Garfield Hays, Julian's lawyer: "Did you ever refuse to give Joe Julian a job as an actor on any of your shows for the sole reason that his name ap- peared in Red Channels?" Martin answered, "I did refuse to give Mr. Julian employment on our shows because his name was in Red Channels."
Later, Judge Saypol asked Martin: ". . . do you know that he [Julian] is sympathetic to the cause of communism?" The producer answered, "Not at all, not that I know of." Saypol continued: "Well now, this Red Channels which seems to be the basis for your label-
50
ing him, says . . . that 'In screening personnel every safeguard must be taken to protect innocents and genuine liberals from being unjustly labeled.' Now is it your testimony that on the basis of his inclusion hi the way in which it has been listed that you have under- taken to label him as a Red, meaning Communist?"
Martin's answer went to the heart of the problem. "Well, I cer- tainly do not mean to imply that I am accusing Mr. Julian of being a Communist. But I maintain that everybody in the book has a label attached to him, and that we — our clients — we are not inter- ested in using the people who are hi the book."
Judge Saypol continued to probe. Why didn't Martin follow the warning in Red Channels that "every safeguard must be taken to protect innocents and genuine liberals from being unjustly labeled"? This was particularly relevant because witnesses had already estab- lished that Julian had appeared hi various anti-Communist shows. Martin attempted to explain that he was acting under orders, but this part of his testimony was ruled inadmissible on the grounds that it involved hearsay. Nevertheless, his statements made it quite clear that he had adopted a policy of not using, or of exercising care in using, anyone named in Red Channels. Later, this was to apply to anyone "listed" in a variety of publications.
In his subsequent testimony, Martin reinforced this general im- pression. He told the court that "he [Julian] is in Red Channels; he has a Red label." Judge Saypol asked, "Nothing else is respon- sible for that label, as far as you are concerned, except the fact of his inclusion in this publication?" and Martin told the judge that he was right.
Finally, the nub of the difficulty was reached hi a colloquy be- tween one of the American Business Consultants' lawyers and Martin. "In other words, then, you do not agree with the statement hi Red Channels, do you, that 'In screening personnel great care should be taken that an injustice be not done to innocents and genu- ine liberals'?" Martin answered, "I certainly do agree with the state-
51
ment in the book, but how can we apply this, this theory? It's im- practicable. Because, I am not a court of law. We therefore take the policy of quarantining a ship; it's preventive medicine. We quarantine everybody in the book. We cannot take any chances."
Martin then extended his answer to "radio actors and actresses and television actors and actresses who have been and who are known to have been associated with Communist fronts." Here, the policy of quarantine was extended beyond the bounds of Red Channels and applied to anyone who had been cited as having a list of associations with alleged Communist fronts.
Martin was accurately describing the policy of the entire industry.
This same point of view was stated by another industry spokes- man, an attorney for one of the large packagers, in a letter written to a talent union official. First the lawyer differentiated between the meanings of the word "blacklist," maintaining that the term properly applied to a conspiracy in restraint of employment and that his client's practice simply amounted to an exercise of volition in hiring. But in the next paragraph he admitted that his client, because of the pressure of sponsors and advertising agencies, would not hire any "controversial" person. Then he made an unusually frank statement about the criteria employed by the industry.
He began by stating that ideology was not involved in hiring or firing. Guilt or innocence of the charges against an actor was simply not relevant. The only question was whether or not the person would be acceptable to the community. The determination of guilt or innocence, he maintained, would require a long trial in a court of law. The program packager could only concern himself with trying to anticipate public reaction. Therefore, the packager was not interested in discovering whether or not a man was actually a member of the organizations listed after his name, or whether par- ticipation in those organizations indicated he was a Communist or sympathetic to communism. It was enough that the charges had been made.
52
This candid statement of policy cannot be attributed to the whole industry. Many of the sponsors involved were concerned with es- tablishing innocence or guilt. Their refusal to use a performer was sincerely based on repugnance to communism or Communists. But whatever the theoretical explanation, the lawyer's letter accurately described the operating practice of the industry. The employment criteria which developed out of Red Channels and similar listings were based on anticipating public reaction. And this is what hung heavy on the consciences of people in the industry. Opposed as they were to blacklisting, they were now required to use it against individuals they knew to be innocent of Communist sympathies.
The disclaimer in Red Channels calling for "safeguards" was fairly meaningless. When political screening becomes secret, ex- cesses are built into the system; they are not merely the result of a faulty exercise of judgment on the part of those engaged in screening.
If screening (or blacklisting) had been confined to the names in Red Channels, it would have created a problem of considerable though manageable proportions. But the accusations kept coming and the lists lengthened as time went on. New charges were made during 1950, '51 and '52. Dozens of performers not mentioned in Red Channels found that they were "in trouble." By 1952 most of the groups favoring blacklisting found that they had named just about everyone vulnerable to attack. Still the attacks never let up. As late as the spring of 1955 the J. Walter Thompson advertising agency was harassed because of certain performers it had used on its dramatic shows during the winter tv season.
The groups who make these continuing charges are almost always aligned with the extreme right wing of American politics. Their techniques are essentially the same as those employed in Red Chan- nels—people are "listed," with the organizations they allegedly joined, and some "citation" is given to show that these organizations
53
are, or at least were, tied in with communism. The "citations" are often the findings of a legislative committee. But sometimes the authority cited is the same as that making the accusation — thus Red Channels cited Counterattack and Counterattack cites Red Channels. Again, American Legion "lists" cite Counterattack as an authority; Counterattack's Red Channels returns the compliment by citing Legion publications.
A fairly typical example of the accusations these groups make can be found hi a letter of the Veterans Action Committee of Syra- cuse Super Markets. This group works closely with Syracuse Post #41 of the American Legion and with Laurence A. Johnson, a Syracuse supermarket owner who has been extremely active in pro- moting political screening in the industry. The threat made in the letter actually received its force from Johnson's control of several supermarkets in Syracuse. The letter was addressed to Leonard A. Block of the Block Drug Company, makers of Amm-i-dent.
DEAR SIR:
Is the [actor's name] who appeared on your "Danger" program last night the Communist Fronter [actor's name] who appeared on the Civil Rights Congress Show? See the attached photostat of the Com- munist Paper, Daily Worker . . . For your information Civil Rights Congress was cited as subversive and Communist by Attorney General Tom Clark, letters to Loyalty Review Board, released December 4, 1947, and September 21, 1948, according to Guide to Subversive Organizations and Publications, 82nd Congress, May 14, 1951.
Is the [actress' name] who also appeared on the same show the same [actress' name] who was mentioned in ... Counterattack? We quote from Counterattack:
"Communists Have Created A 'Living Memorial' For J. Edward Bromberg. About 1500 people were jammed in a hall in the Hotel Diplomat (N.Y. City) on night of Dec. 23. A thousand people were turned away for lack of space . . . Other speakers at this obviously Communist-inspired tribute to J. Edward Bromberg were: [Actress' name] who is starred in current Paramount film [film's name] . . . Miss [actress' name] has front record and last year was
54
featured in the Broadway flop . . . This was a Communist propa- ganda play written by [writer's name], an identified CP member. In spite of efforts of CP and its supporters to make a hit of this play, it failed miserably."
If you plan to continue the use of Communist Front talent wouldn't it be a good idea if you were to send a representative from the Block Drug Company or Cecil & Presberey, Advertising Agency, since both companies are aware the Communist Fronters are allowed in Amm-i- dent advertising. Perhaps we could work out a questionnaire to be given to the people who buy from our cosmetic displays. A ques- tionnaire could be drafted reading, for instance, as follows:
Do You Want Any Part of Your Purchase Price of Amm-i-dent to be Used to Hire Communist Fronters?
YES Q No Q
Indicate your choice by X in the appropriate box. We are sending this letter to you by registered mail because our earlier correspondence to you on May 28th evidently went astray since no answer has been forthcoming.
Very truly yours,
VETERANS ACTION COMMITTEE
OF SYRACUSE SUPER MARKETS
Pressure similar to this came from a number of sources and had the effect of extending blacklisting. In 1951, the National Ameri- canism Commission Sub-Committee on Subversive Activities of the American Legion published a Summary of Trends and Develop- ments Exposing the Communist Conspiracy. The conclusion of the document clearly referred to the situation in radio and television:
Communism cannot be defeated by a lot of words and "pussy- footing." It must be hit hard and often wherever and whenever it exists. Feelings cannot be spared. If, in the course of battle, anyone is unjustly hurt by unknowingly lending their name and financial aid to an organization or cause that is subversive, it is very simple to with- draw that support and to repudiate the organization.
As blacklisting developed, however, this "repudiation" was to become quite complicated.
55
In an industry as sensitive to public opinion as radio-tv, it was inevitable that charges of disloyalty would be effective, especially when they were coupled with the threat of boycott. In the Novem- ber, 1952, issue of Facts About Blacklist, a newsletter published by a group of blacklisted writers, a letter from an Assistant Vice- President of the Borden milk company was quoted in full. It was written to Laurence A. Johnson, the Syracuse supermarket owner:
DEAR LARRY:
I want to tell you again how grateful I am for the time and help you gave me on Tuesday. It is no exaggeration to say that my eyes have been opened as a result of your cooperation. The same goes for Francis Neuser and his group [Veterans Action Committee]. He mentioned the fact that they are unpopular, but I know he isn't right. No one could meet them without being impressed by the honesty and zeal with which they are pursuing this fine course, and with their obvious deter- mination to be fair.
Sincerely yours, /s/ STUART PEABODY
Asst. Vice Pres.
Within a relatively short time, Johnson, and others engaged in the same cause, had a number of such letters to testify to their suc- cess. Johnson was particularly effective. He used the technique of wiring or phoning executives and members of the board of directors of companies which sponsored programs on which "controversial" talent had been used. (In many cases of course these people were "controversial" because Johnson and his friends, with their accusa- tions, made them so.) As a result, the pressure came from the top down and hit the agencies and packagers with considerable force. Only a few companies were willing to risk a questionnaire like the one suggested by the Veterans Action Committee of Syracuse Super Markets.
Although many sponsors are sincerely motivated by opposition to communism, the day-to-day working principle of political screen- ing is based on anticipating public reaction. The controlling ques-
56
tion in "clearance," then, as far as the industry is concerned, is not the establishing of innocence so much as the furnishing of proof that the person involved has made his peace with the pressure groups which threaten to stir up protests.
The case of one radio-tv writer shows the effects the system has had. When Red Channels appeared in 1950, his name was among those listed. Almost immediately he was informed by an agency which had been buying his scripts that it was changing its policy, would use only a limited number of writers in the future and no longer needed his services. He continued to get some assignments in radio and television after this, but more and more he found it necessary to go outside the industry for work.
When the McCarran Committee report came out, his name ap- peared again and he was dropped from the one show he was writing for at that time. After this he did some work for radio — but he could no longer use his own name. All regular commercial assign- ments stopped and he was confined to staff work and anonymous writing. However, even his income from the anonymous shows was affected by publication of the McCarran report. By 1954, his earnings from the ghost writing amounted to $2,000, a tremendous drop from his pie-Red Channels income.
This writer's case is typical of the experience of those who did not attempt to "clear" themselves. They were dismissed from cer- tain shows almost immediately after Red Channels appeared. But some work was available throughout 1950 and even into '51. By that time, however, the screening machinery had begun to work efficiently and the only employment open to them was writing under a pen name or without credit. By 1954 even this was dangerous. There were people inside the industry who favored political screen- ing and watched the comings and goings of blacklisted writers. It became difficult to keep "listed" persons on the payroll, even though their work was never credited on the air.
An actor's story follows similar lines. Before Red Channels, he
57
had been blasted in Counterattack. His employers had showed some concern but had not barred him from working. Even after Red Channels, the actor managed to stay employed for over a year. Then he could find no work. No one claimed it was because of his Red Channels listing, though the actor was well aware that was it. The policy of firing someone on grounds other than the political accusa- tions made against him became routine once blacklisting was ac- cepted as a regular operation. The industry is always concerned over the possibility of law suits based on the charge of conspiracy; therefore the "listings" in Red Channels, Counterattack or the news- letters of the American Legion are never given as a reason for the firing. And in conversations, industry representatives are ever care- ful to indicate that they do not confer with each other about their policy with regard to specific people. The fact remains however that the "other reasons" for not hiring always develop immediately after a political attack; if the person attacked succeeds in "clear- ing" himself with the right people, the "other reasons" usually disappear.
Blacklisting has always been uneven. The industry is united on following a screening policy but standards vary. This is evident in the fact that the actor just mentioned worked on shows which went out over the very network that let him go. But in his case the situation did not persist for long. In 1952 he was considered for a part but before the show went on the air was told he would not be needed. After that he found work on another network. Then Counterattack hit him again and he was out of work once more. After 1953 he could find no work and has been excluded from the industry ever since.
The actor's experience suggests another aspect of blacklisting. Different networks have different policies. So have sponsors and agencies. As a result, an actor might be persona non grata in one place and welcome in another.
58
The unevenness has led to mistakes. In 1950, in one of the earliest, pre-Red Channels cases, Ed Sullivan had the dancer Paul Draper on his show. Draper was already a controversial figure as a result of the highly publicized law suit which he and Larry Adler brought against Mrs. McCullough. The day after Draper appeared in Sullivan's show, the New York Journal- American ran a banner head: "Paul Draper in TV Show Draws Floods of Protests." The next day, the newspaper reported that the New York State Commanders of the Catholic War Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the New York State Adjutant of the American Legion, and the Queens County Commander of the Catholic War Veterans had protested. Shortly afterwards, Sullivan made a public apology.
A fairly prominent movie and stage actor was listed in Red Chan- nels. At the time, he was out of the country and did not learn the fact until he returned. He was charged among other things with having been a member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, the Com- munist military organization which fought for the Loyalists in the Spanish Civil War. The source for the charge was a listing in "Appendix IX." Later, this actor was to prove that "Appendix IX" was wrong. He accounted for all his movements throughout the entire period of the Spanish Civil War and proved conclusively that he could not have served with the Brigade.
It took four years before he could establish this fact to the satisfaction of the radio and television industry. After the listing in 1950, he was able to work on television. But by 1951, his work on television was cut off. At this time he received many calls asking if he were available, but inevitably someone would phone back to tell him it had been decided he was not "right" for the part. After a while, he realized he had been blacklisted. At the urging of his friends, he decided to try to "clear" himself. In the long process of his "clearance," he met with some of the important figures in the field.
59
In 1952, while the actor was trying to "clear" himself, the Ameri- can Legion announced it was going to picket a play in which he was appearing. He protested, citing his proof that he had never been a member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. But this had no im- mediate effect. Some time after this, the actor received a letter of introduction to a leading Legion official. Influential people also wrote to the Legion indicating their belief that the actor was not a Communist and never had been. Eventually, he succeeded in con- vincing the Legion he was innocent of the charges made against him.
In late 1952, the actor was put in touch with George Sokolsky. The actor is convinced that Sokolsky's role in this case, and in others, was based on honest concern. The columnist was con- vinced the charges would not stand up. As a result of their con- versation, Sokolsky wrote a letter stating he felt the evidence against the actor was weak. In this letter, the columnist repeated that he, Sokolsky, could not "clear" anyone, people had to clear themselves.
The actor also met with Jack Wren, "security officer" at the Batten, Barton, Durstine and Osborn advertising agency. It was Wren who advised an affidavit accounting for all his movements during the period of the Spanish Civil War. This step was neces- sary, for the actor had to be "defensible" should protests come in as a result of the original Red Channels listing. Once convinced the actor had been wronged, Wren helped him get back to work, writing letters for him, interceding in his behalf, and in general attempting to establish his "employ ability." But Wren felt it was necessary to lay a careful groundwork of refutation before the actor could actually be used on any program.
In 1953, the actor got in touch with the House Committee on Un-American Activities in order to clear up the original inaccurate listing in "Appendix IX." His letter was acknowledged by Repre- sentative Harold Velde, then chairman of the Committee, with a note assuring him the statement would be filed in the records of
60
the Committee. But he did not succeed in getting any definite state- ment from Velde or the Committee pointing out that the listing had been in error. Throughout the "clearance" procedure, this fact was to remain a block to his being reemployed.
By the end of 1953, the actor found he was still "unemployable," even though various highly placed people in radio, television and Hollywood had absolved him of any sympathy for the Communist Party. At this time, he was able to convince Roy Brewer, the Holly- wood labor leader and key figure hi the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, of the soundness of his case. Brewer wrote a letter indicating he was satisfied the performer was not pro-Communist. The actor used the letter in an attempt to get movie work but was told that the part he sought had already been filled. (The reason given was probably true; a letter from Brewer at that time was enough to clear performers in Hollywood.)
Finally, early in 1954, the actor was assigned to a television show. Almost immediately, he was under attack from Syracuse. The actor wrote a letter to the head of the Legion group in Syracuse, telling him of the inaccuracy of the "Appendix IX" citation and mentioning a highly placed Legionnaire who was convinced he was innocent of pro-Communist sympathies. The letter went un- answered. But when the actor began to appear regularly on various television shows there were no further protests.
By 1955, the actor had almost regained the professional status he held prior to Red Channels. The charges against him had been rebutted. Powerful "anti-Communists" had written letters for him. He had proved he was "defensible." As a result, he resumed normal employment. Now that it is all over, he is grateful to Sokolsky, Wren and Brewer for the help they gave him.
The actor's experience illustrates the "clearance" mechanism which developed after blacklisting became institutionalized. To be- gin with, it shows that the rhetorical claim that a performer must "clear himself" is something less than a description of the reality.
61
Although he must "clear himself," it is also necessary for him to convince various key people that his "clearance" is legitimate. By and large, the persons this actor encountered are the ones who deal with clearances: George Sokolsky, Jack Wren of BBD&O, the top security officers at CBS, various American Legion figures. If this group is convinced of a man's sincerity or, in the case of the execu- tives, "defensibility," he can work.
But the process can be quite lengthy — four years in the case of this particular actor. The actor believes that had he been a more important star, his "clearance" would not have taken so long. A public-relations staff might have been engaged to make him "de- fensible." As it was, the procedure was a long and arduous one and his career was gravely affected.
It is equally important to realize that, from this actor's point of view, the various "clearance" men, like Sokolsky and Wren, were actually trying to help him. He was not asked for money. Once these men were convinced he had been unjustly "listed," they went to some trouble to put him back to work. For many, though, the politics of those with whom a blacklistee must deal remain a stumbling block. The informal "clearance" board is largely right- wing in its political orientation. If a performer has a strong preju- dice against associating with Hearst columnists or American Legion officials, or rejects their definition of "effective anti-communism," he will find it difficult if not impossible to "clear himself."
In 1951, the program directors at CBS became aware of the problem. Actors they had previously used with great success would be turned down even when they were obviously suitable for the part. Soon an internal communications system was developed to head off embarrassing incidents. Before this, actors would some- times be called, or even sign a contract, then it would be found they could not be used because of some "listing" or past political association. By 1952, the CBS procedure was regularized.
62
Producers submitted the names of writers they wanted to use. These were then submitted to the story department. Copies of the memo also went to the executives charged at that time with carrying out the network's screening policy — William Dozier (who is generally credited with having initiated this procedure), Vice- President Daniel O'Shea, or his assistant Alfred Berry. The final word came from O'Shea or Berry. Written rejections of proposed writers were never made. The producers would receive a phone call and be told, "Sorry, we can't clear." When a producer asked why a certain person had been rejected, he was told that it was none of his business.
In one case, a director was signed for a show and actually used. Subsequently, there were protests from Laurence Johnson in Syra- cuse. Johnson had been told by Harvey Matusow that the director was a Communist. Matusow claimed he had seen him at Party meetings. Meetings were arranged between the sponsor, some prominent "anti-Communists," including Sokolsky and Victor Riesel of the Hearst papers, Matusow and the director in question. As soon as he met the director face to face, Matusow admitted he had named the wrong man. Nevertheless, it was impossible to obtain a clear-cut retraction from those who published the charge.
A show became "tough" after a number of "mistakes" were made and protests mounted. Political screening was more careful then, and even those who could work on other shows for the same net- work could not be used. "Danger" fell into this category, so did "Justice." In the case of "Danger," a threat from the Veterans Action Committee of Syracuse had been enough to convince every- one that special precautions were necessary.
However, even when blacklisting is functioning well, a few peo- ple still manage to work under assumed names. This is generally only possible for writers, or for actors working on radio, since a television appearance can easily be noted by someone in the audi- ence. Still, one blacklisted actress managed to work on television
63
as the hands in a soap commercial until she was recognized enter- ing the studio. But her case was an exception. Most blackmarket work is done by writers.
In the early days of blacklisting, it was possible for a writer to submit scripts under an assumed name. After a while, the system was tightened up. It is now necessary for a writer to have a "front" in order to continue working. The "front" must be a person who can convincingly carry off the role of a writer. He attends all conferences on the script which he is supposed to have written. He has to be coached on how to react to suggestions, how to take notes on the changes which the producer or director requests, etc. If the "front" has some acting experience, so much the better.
Once the "front" is successful, a whole series of problems arises. He receives public credit for shows written by another man. His family and friends assume he is making a great deal of money. His employer may question him about working on company time. When the next deal comes up, the "front" often demands that his cut of the check be raised to a point commensurate with his status as a big-name television writer. Ego problems develop. The "front" begins to act like a first-rate writing talent and resents the actual writer.
In one case — now an industry legend — a "front" became so successful he was hired as a script editor for some television shows. Once in this position, he refused to use the work of the blacklisted writers who had made his reputation, on the grounds that it would endanger his position.
Another "front" received an offer to go to Hollywood to write movies. A third became infuriated when his father called him and said: "I saw your show last night. I'm glad to see that you're finally becoming a writer after all these years of trying." As a result of the emotional crisis engendered by this phone call, the "front" broke off relations with the blacklisted writer.
64
Throughout the radio-tv industry, the fact that someone is "in trouble" (the industry's euphemism for being blacklisted) has often meant that high-priced talent could be bought at cut-rate prices. The larger talent agencies refuse to handle blacklisted writers who work through "fronts," but the smaller companies saw an oppor- tunity to make a killing and have gone along. When this happens, a part of the check for the show goes to the agency and if the packager is aware of the arrangement, he too may demand a kickback.
In one case, a "front" got so interested in improving his position he accepted almost any terms from producers. Instead of demand- ing reasonable working conditions (for example with regard to deadlines) he began to agree to all offers. The pressure on the blacklisted writer he was "fronting" for became so great that the writer eventually had to break off the relationship. In still another case, a producer offered to get a better "front" for a writer. The man he suggested had been in the business long enough to build up a personal reputation and his scripts were worth more. And finally, there was a case in which the "front" himself became blacklisted after he had achieved a certain ersatz prominence.
Because of all the problems involved in blackmarketing, "fronts" do not last long. Perhaps the greatest single difficulty hi the rela- tionship is the ego problem. "Fronts" are often frustrated and unsuccessful writers themselves and the experience of receiving credit for brilliantly written shows creates problems for them. In a few cases, men have "fronted" on principle, as a means of oppos- ing blacklisting. But these instances are relatively rare.
All these factors combine to make the blackmarket business an insignificant part of radio and television production. It is a method open only to the best of the blacklisted talent and is hazardous even for them.
In one case, a blacklisted director was able to work. He would go to the studio early in the morning with the regular director, check
65
all the camera angles, suggest changes in the script and the way in which an actor should handle his lines. The whole operation was finished by eight o'clock. It finally broke down when someone in- side the industry became suspicious of the director who received credit and accused him of working with a blacklisted person. After this, collaboration between a blacklisted director and a regular director became more or less impossible.
At times, radio-tv "security" standards seem to be relaxed some- what. People who have been "unemployable" find work without going through the formality of a "clearance." But then, some pres- sure group starts a protest and the hiring offices resume their cau- tion. Often, a step-by-step procedure is worked out to bring an actor back to "full employ ability." First there is an appearance on a show sponsored by an institutional advertiser which does not re- quire criteria as strict as those used by consumer-goods sponsors. If this appearance goes unnoticed, the actor may then attempt to find a spot on a more difficult show, citing his experience with the institutional advertiser to prove he is no longer "in trouble." If all goes well there, the word gets around that he can be generally used.
In the winter of 1955, there were persistent rumors that things were letting up. Several actors and actresses who had not been used for some time suddenly found work. But any anticipation that blacklisting was coming to an end were premature. In April, 1955, the Veterans Action Committee of Syracuse Super Markets started to campaign against the Kraft Foods Company. The campaign began with a letter addressed "To All Food Retailers, Wholesalers and Patriotic Organizations," charging that the Kraft television show had used two Communist fronters, and that this was part of a con- tinuing policy of the company.
The Syracuse attack included the same kind of threat that had been addressed to the Block Drug Company:
66
We invite you to follow the suggestion of John K. Dungey and join the American Legion in making such a test and take a poll of the customers as they buy Kraft products. For instance, a questionnaire could be drafted reading, "Do you want any part of your money spent for Kraft products, to help subsidize anyone who had directly or in- directly contributed in any way toward helping the Communist Con- spiracy in the United States? Indicate in the appropriate box YES or NO."
As long as such pressure continues, there will probably be no letup in blacklisting. The industry set its fundamental policy after the Muir, Wicker and Loeb cases. It has, in effect, agreed to accept a basic limitation upon its right to hire. While this policy is accepted and the pressure continues, there is little chance that blacklisting can be brought to an end.
The fact was reinforced when the House Committee on Un- American Activities visited New York in August, 1955. The Com- mittee conducted an investigation of Communist influence in the theatre. The impact of the hearings, though far less effective than any of the Hollywood probes, buttressed the idea that the enter- tainment industry is heavily infiltrated by Communists.
This was the final outcome of the policy that had been adopted by the radio-tv industry in the turbulent early days of blacklisting. Blacklisting was institutionalized and the institution received power- ful support within and without the industry. Every major network had executives appointed to implement its screening policies. The most important agencies assigned top-level executives to see that no mistakes were made. There were professional consultants who for a fee supplied dossiers on prospective performers and writers. And all this machinery was working smoothly and largely behind closed doors. Arrangements were verbal; very little was written down. Great care was taken to avoid the charge of conspiracy. The in- dustry, rejecting the word "blacklist," retreated to high semantic grounds whenever the question came up. But no one denied that certain persons could not work until they were "cleared" — and
67
that was what most people meant when they spoke of blacklisting.
Most of the executives at the networks, agencies and packagers were deeply disturbed by the institution even while they were creating it. Joseph H. Ream, a former CBS executive and predeces- sor of Daniel O'Shea as "security officer" for that network, was a typical example.
In 1950, CBS instituted a loyalty oath for all its employees. This took place at the point of transition from public to secret black- listing. The Council of the Authors League of America took a dim view of the network's new policy and wrote a letter of protest to Ream. Their exchange raised most of the relevant questions with regard to political screening.
The Authors League Council wrote:
Our opinion is that the only valid defense of American democracy will consist of a re-affirmation and a strengthening of its ideals and its established processes. If the kind of personal liberties which are defined in the first ten amendments of the Constitution are ever lost, the democracy we wish to defend will have been lost. We recognize that in times of stress in the past certain personal liberties have been curtailed. We feel that in the present crisis, the issue of individual civil liberties has become one of the central issues at conflict, and that no sacrifice in those liberties should be permitted without the most careful scrutiny.
The letter then went on to consider the CBS loyalty oath and, by implication, the entire system of political screening. The Council wrote of the oath:
It establishes the principle that a writer's employment may depend upon his politics. The Authors League has always taken the view that a writer's employment should depend upon his writings. We fully understand that under wartime conditions precautions have to be taken, especially in the field of communications, against subversion and sabo- tage, and that the move by CBS has been taken in the name of such precautions. Nevertheless, we deplore the principle that the hiring or firing of a writer should be decided by his politics, without recourse to the proper channels for security against subversion already estab- lished and now being extended by the United States Government. Your
68
technique goes outside and beyond those channels and arrogates to one corporation a type of function which has traditionally belonged to the Federal Government. Unless and until this power is delegated to cor- porations in a legal and orderly manner, it seems to us improper for a single corporation haphazardly to take it.
Ream answered for CBS: "In the first place, employment will not depend on an individual's politics. We are not concerned with that, but with loyalty." This distinction was basic to the industry's case. It was founded on the notion that communism was totally a conspiracy and not "political" at all. From this, it deduced the right to handle Communists in certain ways which would not be allowable if only political beliefs were at issue.
To the charge that the political screening system was a private court without competence or mandate, Ream replied:
The answer lies in how intelligently and how fairly this program is administered, and this obviously cannot be proved or disproved in advance. Our record over the years in the field of controversial public issues involving public opinion should provide substantial assurance to you that fairness will be our touchstone.
The same point came up hi another form. The Authors League had stated:
The CBS questionnaire is more likely to condemn the loyal unjustly than to discover the disloyal. In days of hysteria like these, the mere hint that a man has ever had communistic connections may damage his earning power indefinitely. No safeguards against this happening to those who are loyal have been announced by CBS. A fundamental safeguard, it seems to us, would be a guarantee not to deprive a writer of his job on any ground except incompetence, without a hearing.
Ream had replied:
Next, we necessarily have to evaluate the reported subversive con- nections. I have indicated to our staff group that I am available to discuss with any employee any questions which he may have. Also, in cases where I may have questions, I intend to seek discussion with the employee concerned.
69
Here again, the main point of defense was the promise that the system would be engineered in a fair spirit and with honest ground rules. But this failed to take into account a tremendously impor- tant factor: the significance of the growth of the political screening system was a shift in responsibility. The networks, agencies and sponsors no longer trusted themselves to hire and fire. They turned over their authority to outsiders. They grumbled against these out- siders, they complained about them, they resented them, but they never failed to try to placate them.
Clearly political screening became something it was never in- tended to be by those who began it.
70
Newsmen and Commentators
THE FIRST RADIO NEWS ANALYSTS were foreign correspondents who experimented with telling what Hitler's rallies looked like and re- porting on what was being thought and said in Europe. As war loomed, their attempts to put the headlines in a political context won a tremendous response. News commentary as we know it to- day came into existence in September, 1938, at the time of the Czechoslovakian crisis. The man who more than any other was responsible for inventing it was H. V. Kaltenborn. Americans listened to Kaltenborn, to Edward R. Murrow and William L. Shirer, and these men became known by voice and mannerism as no reporters of the printed press had ever been known. They be- came public personalities.*
The Columbia Broadcasting System has long led in the field of news commentary. This was due originally to the secondary posi- tion of that network. Before the war, CBS was overshadowed by NBC, the original radio network, and looked to fields left largely unexplored. Among these was news broadcasting. The chairman of the CBS board, William S. Paley, was interested in news broad- casting, and one of the network vice-presidents, Edward Klauber, was a former editor of The New York Times. They set up a news department which had policies comparable — but still not identical
* Of all radio-tv personalities, newsmen and commentators are in the best posi- tion to "propagandize." Comparatively few of these men have been burdened with the kind of charges found in Red Channels. But because of the special nature of their work, it was thought best to deal with them separately.
71
— with those of the best newspapers. News was to be edited and presented by the network itself; sponsors could buy news programs but the broadcaster was to be a member of the CBS staff. Paley had the idea of following the news with an analysis of the news, which, like an editorial, would be clearly set off from the reports of what was happening. The analyses were also the product of the network staff and had specified limits.
According to a 1939 policy statement written by Klauber:
. . . What news analysts are entitled to do and should do is to elucidate and illuminate the news out of common knowledge, or special knowledge possessed by them or made available to them by this organi- zation through its news sources. They should point out the facts on both sides, show contradictions with the known record, and so on. They should bear in mind that in a democracy it is important that people not only should know but should understand, and it is the analyst's function to help the listener to understand, to weigh, and to judge, but not to do the judging for him.
The network's distinguished news chief, the late Paul White, felt strongly about the distinction between the non-partisan analyst and the omniscient commentator. White was largely responsible for the character of the CBS operation.
The CBS policy was later taken up by NBC. The American Broadcasting Company and the Mutual Broadcasting System have worked along different lines. Their commentators are either frankly partisan or hold to fairly well-defined viewpoints. ABC and MBS commentators can speak as they please. These networks try to see to it that the various major points of view are represented in their corps of commentators. Thus on these two networks men of such disparate outlook as Fulton Lewis and John W. Vandercook, or George Sokolsky and Elmer Davis, can be heard. There is a prob- lem here in that few Americans are sufficiently interested — or durable — to listen to the balanced total of a network's com- mentators; most tend to listen to the partisans who reinforce their
72
own convictions. But commentators of all major persuasions are there for those who wish to hear them.
This method of handling the problem of partisanship supposedly imposes on the networks responsibility to carry a balance of com- mentators even if some are unsponsored. It does not obligate them to keep individuals on the air. And it does not solve the problem arising when a local station decides that it will carry only broad- casters of one persuasion. (Most of the commentators on Mutual and ABC are without national sponsorship. Local stations sell them to local sponsors, if they can, and insert their own commer- cial messages.)
The CBS-NBC system of non-partisan analysts working as part of a network staff does prevent this kind of local partiality. The emphasis is substantially the same whether a local station carries only one, or the full schedule, of network analyses.
The Communications Act of 1934 expressly states that "Nothing in this Act shall be understood or construed to give the Commis- sion the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station . . ." However, in 1941, the Federal Communications Commission had before it the case of a broadcaster who had supported candidates for public office and advocated public causes, and the Commission, in its famous May- flower decision, ruled that "a truly free radio cannot be used to advocate the causes of the licensee ... it cannot be devoted to the support of principles he happens to regard most favorably. In brief, the broadcaster cannot be an advocate."
In 1949 the Commission reviewed its policy on editorial opinion and stated that while the "individual licensees of radio stations have the responsibility for determining the specific program material to be broadcast over their stations," nevertheless "the basic policy of the Congress [is] that radio be maintained as a medium of free speech for the general public as a whole rather than as an outlet for the purely personal or private interests of the licensee. This requires
73
that licensees devote a reasonable percentage of their broadcasting time to the discussion of public issues of interest in the community served by their stations and that such programs be designed so that the public has a reasonable opportunity to hear different opposing positions . . . Such presentation may include the identified expres- sion of the licensee's personal viewpoint as part of the more general presentation of views or comments on the various issues ..."
The parallel which industry spokesmen draw between the free- dom accorded newspapers and that which they believe broadcasting should have is marked by one particular flaw: in the present condi- tion of broadcasting, almost all individual stations have abdicated to the four national networks any responsibility they might have to initiate the discussion of international affairs. And this is true to a lesser degree in the discussion of national politics. To say that sta- tions should have a newspaper's freedom to editorialize on these issues means — as things now stand — that the four networks should editorialize.
The first great controversies about broadcast opinion took place in the Thirties. There was the Father Coughlin affair: what had begun as religious broadcasts changed into highly controversial social and political speeches. Mutual requested the right to review the Coughlin speeches before broadcast and Father Coughlin re- fused, withdrew from Mutual and spoke over an ad hoc network. The priest was ultimately silenced by his ecclesiastical superiors.
The Orson Welles Martian episode had nothing directly to do with opinion but vividly demonstrated to both the industry and the public the power of the broadcast word and so had a bearing on subsequent discussion of the responsible use of the air. There were arguments about whether Walter Winchell and Boake Carter — popular, uninhibited and opinionated broadcasters — were worthy of the public influence their network spots gave them. Gilbert Seldes wrote in The Big Audience:
74
Among the ifs of history, one might consider seriously what would have happened to Winchell and to America if he had been a reactionary and an isolationist from 1939 to Pearl Harbor — if Pearl Harbor had come. It is imaginable that a clamor against lend-lease and for appeas- ing Japan might have brought a strong isolationist candidate into the field instead of Wendell Willkie. It is conceivable that a radio broad- caster with millions of believers, attracted to him originally because he was entertaining, might have thrown the balance toward such a candi- date. In the summer of 1941 a single vote in Congress prevented the disbanding of American military training; in the fall of that year one popular voice added to those already on the other side might have turned the trick.
When war came, the American public was temporarily united on the great political issues. The focus of attention was on the war itself. Radio was performing brilliantly as a medium for straight news. Its speed and immediacy made it unquestionably the most important news medium for the public at large. The nation switched on the radio to hear its fate.
In 1943 a skirmish over an issue of freedom of opinion cast shadows of what was to come. Cecil Brown, the newsman who had broadcast the sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse, re- signed from CBS and charged he was being prevented from speak- ing his mind. CBS said that Brown had violated the restrictions it placed on the broadcasting of analysts' private opinions. At issue was a broadcast Brown had made in which he said, in effect, that the American people had lost interest in the war. Paul White, Brown's chief at CBS, criticized the broadcast as "out and out editorializing," and thus contrary to the network's policies. CBS came under the fire of the Association of Radio News Analysts, which charged it with gagging its analysts. John W. Vandercook, speaking for the Association, asked if the CBS policy did not put the judgment of public issues into the hands of "five of its execu- tives who control the news policies of the corporation." The net- work replied that what it was trying to do was keep all judgments
75
out of its analyses. White said that, ideally, "in the case of contro- versial issues, the audience should be left with no impression as to which side the analyst himself actually favors."
Gilbert Seldes, who worked at CBS at the time and was involved in the controversy, says that the intention was rather to keep preju- dice out of the analyses. White felt very strongly about the impar- tiality principle; perhaps more strongly than the network chiefs. In any event, after White left CBS the emphasis on "neutrality" changed somewhat.
With the end of the war came an inevitable drop in the popularity of news and commentary. And with the peace also came a splinter- ing in the unity of American public opinion. The Soviet Union had been highly praised during the war, American national policy had been one of collaboration with Russia, there was a considerable sympathy for the Russian people. All that changed quickly. In the final months of the war there was also a vigorous national debate over the future of Germany. The Morgenthau Plan, to take all heavy industry out of Germany and make of the Reich a state with an agricultural economy, was widely supported, as were proposals for the revision of Germany's borders beyond what had been set in the Versailles treaty. Then there was the question of Eastern Eu- rope, supposedly liberated by the Red Army, actually being at- tached by the Soviet Union.
An early postwar instance of a commentator's running afoul of public controversy was centered on the German issue. In the last months of the war, Dorothy Thompson was conducting a radio news commentary for Mutual. In the spring of 1945 she wanted to go to Europe and arranged an amicable cancellation of her radio con- tract. The storm over the German issue broke soon after. Miss Thompson had already opposed the Morgenthau Plan, the revision of Germany's 1919 frontiers, the dismemberment of Germany and, later, other provisions in the Potsdam Agreement. She was severely criticized in the liberal press and her column was dropped by several
76
papers (by the New York Post after a front-page editorial denunci- ation of her views) . In addition to the attacks in the press, she suf- fered considerable word-of-mouth character assassination and im- pugnment of her motives. After she returned to the United States she was not asked to resume her broadcasts, and while she sus- pected that her controversial stand on the German question was a factor, she also felt that the public probably had enough of crisis over the air and that news comment would suffer a drop hi popu- larity. She did not attempt to get another program and has not broadcast regularly since that time.*
Another postwar controversy involved commentator Upton Close. Close was ultra-conservative in his views and had been a forthright isolationist. After the war he made a celebrated attack on Bishop Bernard J. Sheil. The Bishop had aroused the antago- nism of many right-wingers, in and out of the Catholic Church, be- cause of his public statements on social and political questions. Close's attack on the prelate drew an equally celebrated and dra- matic reply from the Bishop himself, on time provided by the network. Open pressure from unions and left-wing and liberal organizations, "approaching a boycott" according to Gilbert Seldes, brought about Close's removal from Mutual. He turned to tran- scription but was unsuccessful and left the air. He now publishes a "nationalist" newsletter hi Florida.
William L. Shirer, author of Berlin Diary, had been one of the first and most famous of radio news commentators. During and after the war he did a series of news commentaries from New York and Europe for CBS. In the spring of 1947 he resigned from the network after a dispute. Shirer felt that the situation which brought about his resignation was due in large part to the network's and
* After Miss Thompson's column was dropped by the Post, a liberal radio com- mentator who was having somewhat similar difficulties with his network over other issues offered to join in a protest that her exclusion from the Post was a suppres- sion of free opinion. She replied that she wanted no protest; that the Post had no Constitutional obligation to renew her contract and print her column.
77
especially the sponsor's displeasure with his political liberalism. The network and sponsor denied this. At the time a CBS directive for- bade the expression of personal opinion by its commentators, but Shirer says it was not rigidly enforced. A few months later he began a series of broadcasts over Mutual.
In 1954 Shirer published a novel which was taken by many to be an autobiographical account of the affair and lent itself to the in- terpretation that the network had dropped him because of the Com- munist issue. Shirer says that the novel was not an autobiographical account of his case and regrets it was so interpreted. His argument with CBS, he says, had nothing to do with blacklists or charges of pro-communism .
Another commentator who left the air for some time after the war was John W. Vandercook. He resigned from NBC after a dis- pute with the network (not his sponsor), in which, he feels, the fact that he was a New Deal Democrat, while his superior in the news organization was a conservative, was a factor but not the only fac- tor. There was no question of blacklisting.
Still another was Raymond Swing. Swing says that his leaving the air (ABC) at this time was a consequence of ill health and had nothing whatever to do with political issues.
Johannes Steel was a left-wing commentator who had broadcast over Mutual during the war not as a member of the network's news staff but as an independent commentator on time purchased spe- cifically for him. After the war he temporarily went off the air and in early 1947 a dinner was held for him, organized by Dorothy Parker, from which grew the organization called The Voice of Freedom Committee.
The Voice of Freedom Committee characterized as "censorship" the fact that Shirer, Robert St. John, Vandercook, Steel and others had left the air. The group organized a system of "monitors" who listened to specific programs and commentators and each week wrote to the program in criticism or praise. "In emergency cases,"
78
one of its pamphlets said, "whole divisions of monitors are alerted and called into militant action by VOF and the offending station may be swamped with indignant letters, phone calls and telegrams." It claimed to have 3,000 such monitors. In cities outside New York its members would go to stations in delegations to protest "reaction- ary propaganda."
In May of 1947 William Shirer, who had left CBS but had not begun broadcasting for Mutual, was asked to appear at a VOF meeting in New York to discuss the reason for his departure from CBS. He was told that Edward R. Murrow, representing CBS, and a Federal Communications Commissioner would appear to discuss the issues of the controversy. Murrow did not show up. The FCC commissioner, Clifford J. Durr, did appear. Shirer says that after attending this and one more Voice of Freedom affair, he came to feel that he was being exploited. The Committee's political sympa- thies were certainly not his own. Thereafter he avoided the group.
When John W. Vandercook left NBC the Voice of Freedom Committee approached him in an effort to enlist him in their cam- paign. The commentator took an instant dislike to the political complexion of the Committee. "I had to beat them off with sticks," he said in recalling the incident. Vandercook told the group that he did not wish to pose as a martyr. "One of the divine rights of democracy is NBC's right to fire me," he said.
The Voice of Freedom Committee made its special target Fulton Lewis, Jr., the Mutual network's scrappy right-wing commentator. Lewis replied with a bitter attack on the Committee. The Com- mittee without success tried to get equal time on Mutual to answer him. The Committee claimed that it was successful in getting one sponsor to drop Lewis. (Lewis says he has lost several sponsors as a result of liberal and left-wing pressure groups.)
Lewis was not the only target of the Voice of Freedom. At the beginning of the Korean war the group attacked Eric Sevareid, Richard Harkness, Lowell Thomas, Gabriel Heatter, John Cameron
79
Swayze, Douglas Edwards, Richard Hottelet, CBS's correspondent in Germany (the Committee compared him with Goebbels), Ed- ward R. Murrow (whose remarks on the Korean war, according to the Committee, were "a mouldy dish of red-baiting rhetoric"), and a generous number of other commentators and reporters, both conservative and liberal. The Committee's position on the Korean affair was founded on the belief that North Korea had been attacked by South Korea. After 1950, the Voice of Freedom Committee faded away.
Of the ten radio newsmen listed in Red Channels, only Robert St. John, William L. Shirer, and Howard K. Smith were network commentators of national reputation.* Alexander Kendrick was identified in the book as a writer and foreign correspondent and subsequently has become well known as a London correspon- dent for the Columbia Broadcasting System. The other radio news commentators listed by Red Channels were Arthur Gaeth, William S. Gailmor, Roderick B. Holmgren, Lisa Sergio, Johannes Steel and J. Raymond Walsh.
Robert St. John has retired from broadcasting. He now lives in Europe.
After leaving CBS in 1947, William Shirer broadcast for Mutual. When Red Channels was published in 1950 he was in Europe gath- ering material for a book. He recently stated: "Since Red Channels was published I have never been regularly employed by a major network. It was not a matter of low ratings, etc." One summer he broadcast for the short-lived Liberty Broadcasting System, a base- ball network which unsuccessfully tried to break into general pro- gramming. On a few occasions he has appeared on NBC's "Today" as a guest commentator.
Shirer feels he has been the victim of blacklisting. He regards
* Winston Burdett, CBS newsman who testified in the summer of 1955 that he had once served briefly as a Soviet agent, was not listed.
80
his three citations in Red Channels — which did not accuse him of being a Communist or directly of being a fellow-traveler — as arbi- trary and misleading. Any implication they made of sympathy for communism was directly contradictory to the views he had ex- pressed in his books and in hundreds of broadcasts. Shirer feels that, his own case aside, the executives of the major networks have abdicated their responsibilities hi this matter to persons outside the industry. "I think," he told a reporter not long ago, "that if the major networks had taken a firm stand in the beginning, excluding Communists and fascists from their staffs, but making a fair de- termination of individual cases, this thing would never have gotten off the ground. The network executives themselves are chiefly responsible." In recent years Shirer has devoted himself to free- lance writing and lecturing.
Howard K. Smith, chief of the European news staff of the Colum- bia Broadcasting System, says of his listing in Red Channels: "I am happy to say that I have suffered very little or not at all. I have never seen the listing or what it said. It produced no effect on my relations with CBS, nor had any public reaction that I have heard of. I know that many people have suffered due to such attacks. But somehow I was not scathed."
Alexander Kendrick made a similar statement:
As I recall, the citations in themselves were accurate. They were, of course, made without any reference to any other activities or writing. I suppose I am one of the fortunate few who suffered no adverse effects as a result. The listing did not affect my relationship with CBS in any way. Indeed, after the listing, I became a staff correspondent although previously, when the black book came out, I had been only a local correspondent in Vienna. Whether there were any letters to the net- work, I do not know. I suppose there must have been, and if so, CBS must have ignored them. The point is, of course, that CBS News is under the control and supervision of CBS and that sponsorship pressure does not operate as it does in the entertainment phase of radio and television. So far as I know, CBS News resisted successfully any such
81
pressure. The only CBS comment made to me about Red Channels was from Edward R. Murrow, who said: "If you're in trouble, we're all in trouble."
Arthur Gaeth could not be located for comment on his experi- ence with Red Channels. He formerly broadcast over ABC for the United Electrical Workers union.
William S. Gailmor, Roderick B. Holmgren and Lisa Sergio have all been retired from broadcasting. Holmgren recently described his case this way:
For the two years following the end of the war, I was "labor's own commentator," sponsored by the Chicago Federation of Labor on the federation's station, WCFL. I tried to be scrupulously careful to adhere to policies on every issue about which I commented. I was fired in September, 1947 — three years before publication of Red Channels. When I pressed for the reason, I was told it was because I had "fol- lowed a CIO line." Some time before that, I learned, quite by accident, that the manager of the station was visited repeatedly by an agent or agents for the FBI, who talked with him specifically about me. It goes without saying that I never learned any details of these meetings.
In December of 1947, 1 went to work for the Chicago Typographical Union, writing radio scripts for a series of nightly broadcasts in con- nection with the strike against five Chicago dailies. Though the Typos asked me to write, produce and emcee the broadcasts, the WCFL man- ager refused to let me set foot inside the studios. I continued doing these scripts about four months, and quit voluntarily to go to work for the Progressive Party in the spring of 1948.
Some time during 1949 or early 1950, I did a series of news com- mentaries for a new FM station in Chicago, WMOR. The broadcasts were unsponsored, with the understanding that the station sales staff would attempt to obtain a sponsor, using the live program itself as "sample." I did two broadcasts about the Peoria Street race riots, in which I identified names of several of those who started the violence. A ... restaurant chain owner who held some stock in the station, pressured the young veterans who were operating the station to suggest that I leave the air. I did, remaining friends with the struggling young station directors.
In effect, the loss of my job as commentator for WCFL ended my
82
radio career, since I was unable to secure another permanent job in that field. It was for this reason that I turned, in 1949, to the labor move- ment where I have been working in black-and-white editorial jobs since. I suppose the word "progressive" would best characterize my politi- cal position. The listing in Red Channels is accurate. I was publicity chairman for the National Labor Conference for Peace. I did teach classes in journalism at the ill-fated Abraham Lincoln School. I've never been quite clear as to what the two citations proved.
The Red Channels listing, Holmgren feels, merely made it "official" that the door was closed.
Holmgren is now an Associate Editor of the official organ of the International Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, which is often cited as a Communist-dominated union.
Johannes Steel had broadcast for what is now station WMGM in New York City after he left the Mutual network. Counterattack criticized his broadcasts, and there was pressure on him from var- ious anti-Communist groups, Catholic groups in particular. Steel believes that "the worst pressure group is the Roman Catholic Church." At the end of 1948 or early in 1949 (he does not recall exactly), he was dismissed by the station. He believes that his dis- missal was a consequence of Catholic pressure on the owners of the station but adds that all concerned would deny this. When Red Channels was published, Steel had the distinction, such as it was, of 34 Communist-front citations, more than any other radio com- mentator. At the time the listings appeared he was already off the air. In 1950-51 he returned to broadcasting on New York's WLIB on time he purchased himself. But he is again off the air and has, he feels, been "driven off." He now characterizes his own political position as "an Eisenhower Republican, formerly a Roosevelt Democrat."
J. Raymond Walsh is a former director of Research and Educa- tion for the CIO. In 1945 he went into radio. From that year until 1950 he broadcast for WMCA in New York. His sponsor was a
83
retail chain store. There was increasing pressure on the sponsor during those five years, principally because of Mr. Walsh's views on foreign policy and the China question. His broadcast sharply criti- cizing Winston Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech at Fulton, Mis- souri, brought on considerable protest. When Red Channels was published, he says, the consumer pressure against his sponsor, "es- pecially from Catholic groups," was so great that they had to drop him, and as he was unsponsored he went off the air. "There is no question but that Red Channels played a very important role in my case," Walsh says. He characterizes his politics as independent, pro-labor and pro-New Deal. "I am more radical than many liber- als but not from any specifically Marxian position." He is now with a private investment concern in New York.
Raymond Swing was not listed in Red Channels. But shortly after its publication he was invited to debate the question of Com- munist influence in radio with Theodore Kirkpatrick, of Counter- attack, before the Radio Executives Club. Swing argued that the Communist problem was a genuine one in radio but that the danger was not only that commentators and entertainers were Communists but that technical personnel and the executives themselves might be Party members. He also argued that the responsibility for dealing with the problem belonged with the networks themselves and ought not to be turned over to an outside group which worked for profit.
Shortly after the debate, Swing was attacked in an issue of Counterattack. To the best of his knowledge, this had no effect on his career. He subsequently left the Liberty network to spend two years as chief political commentator for the Voice of America and now works on Edward R. Murrow's staff at CBS.
In March, 1954, Counterattack devoted an entire issue to Mur- row, charging him with receiving an inordinate amount of praise from the Communist press and criticizing his broadcasts on Big Four talks, the Harry Dexter White case, Lieutenant Milo Radulo- vich, and Senator McCarthy. The newsletter stated that Murrow
84
slanted his reporting and was guilty of "unsoundness on vital issues concerning communism." The criticism of Murrow has often been echoed in the American Mercury, the Brooklyn Tablet and other right-wing publications. Murrow obviously has not been sub- stantially harmed by the attacks and has remarked of unfriendly mail and pressure campaigns, "I never worry about that stuff."
Red Channels and the other listings obviously cannot be blamed for all the vicissitudes in the careers of the reputable commentators. The Red Channels controversy took place at a time when television was making its first inroads into the economic structure of radio. The industry was in transition. News departments, stepchildren of the industry, are easily affected by economic problems. In the case of one well-known commentator, even observers sympathetic to his politics suggest that it was not politics that lost him his job — it was dullness.
One evaluation of the total effect which the "lists" have had on the field of radio opinion itself is a consideration of what is on the air today. ABC and NBC are surely no more conservative in their news commentaries than they were before Red Channels was pub- lished. NBC's broadcasts of news comment tend generally to be non- partisan analyses. ABC continues to have a balance of representa- tive points of view. The Mutual network's Washington news chief has been quoted as saying that he is a "conservative working for a conservative network."
This would seem to be an accurate description of the network's general point of view in news comment. But Mutual's example does not prove any industry trend. CBS can certainly be characterized as more liberal in its news analyses than it was five or six years ago. It no longer strives for the kind of broadcast where, as Paul White urged, "the listener is left with no impression as to which side the analyst himself actually favors." There are judgments made in CBS analyses, and the tone is "internationalist" or "liberal" in so far as
85
such categorization is valid. But there are no crusades and opposing arguments are honestly reported.
Yet there have been consequences from the events in which the "lists" played a part which are more subtle. And this is perhaps the major significance they have had. Edward P. Morgan, former CBS news chief, now an ABC commentator in Washington, said recently: "The lists, as well as the whole climate of opinion of the past few years, put into the minds of even the best men something which was not there before — a care about the words they used, an instinct to cover themselves on controversial issues." He added: "Commentators are hard to sell anyway. With a few notable excep- tions, no commentator can be sold to a sponsor unless his opinions coincide with business opinion — or at least don't clash with it."
Lawrence Spivak, one of the originators of NBC's "Meet the Press," argues that by and large sponsors do not use commentators to articulate a political position. "Advertisers are primarily inter- ested in programs that attract an audience who will buy their prod- ucts or services, or bring them good will. There may be exceptions to this, possibly on a local level, but even there not many advertisers will spend money just to sell their political ideas."
It is this problem of the general trend in opinion which has had an inhibiting effect on commentators. The "lists" are simply one aspect of a total situation which might be characterized as an in- creased tendency among Americans to condemn rather than argue. It is inevitable of course that passionate controversy will involve undercurrents of rumor and vituperation. But in recent years the undercurrents seem to have quickened.
Eric Sevareid, chief of the CBS Washington news staff, and some of his colleagues did a few paid broadcasts for the Voice of America in 1950. Sevareid personally made one short broadcast at the re- quest of the Voice, which was trying to comply with the Smith- Mundt Act requiring the services of "private enterprise." He and his colleagues were then attacked in several anti-Communist "fact
86
sheets" as "paid propagandists" for the "pro-Communist" Acheson State Department. Sevareid said recently: "This sort of thing, the organized pressure and the vituperative letters and calls one some- times gets, produce a feeling of depression or distress in a man. Any fairly sensitive person cannot help but react."
Sevareid contends that a commentator ought in fairness to be judged by his approach to events. "Some try to be fair, to be objec- tive — in the sense of avoiding partisanship, not hi the sense of being neutral. Some are tendentious." This, he feels, is the difference. "Involved too is the special problem of the writer, an essentially private problem which does not submit to formulae and which rarely is understood, even by network executives, certainly not by those who are organizing pressure campaigns to score points for one side or the other."
Martin Agronsky of ABC is a "cooperatively" sponsored liberal commentator who has been the target of heavy pressure in recent years. "Even though I have experienced some heavy going at tunes, I have been commercial. The network has backed me up. That's all I ask." Agronsky says, however, that the problem in deal- big with the various pressures which affect commentators is simply that responsible people in the networks and stations frequently fail to find out whether allegations against commentators are true or not. A station manager may panic at an organized letter campaign. Agronsky feels the networks must choose their commentators care- fully, assuring themselves they have a responsible staff, and then back them to the hilt.
Drew Pearson had some specific troubles. Senator McCarthy made an attack against him on the Senate floor which caused the commentator to lose his sponsor. Pearson feels that the McCarthy attack also frightened off some prospective television sponsors. He sued McCarthy for libel and has attempted to draw the Senator into repeating the charges outside the Senate.
Elmer Davis of ABC says: "I don't doubt that plenty of people
87
have tried to get ABC to put me off the air, but apparently all their letters go into the waste basket . . . These things naturally never had any effect on what I say."
Chet Huntley, a West Coast television news analyst now broad- casting from New York, became the object of attack in Los Angeles for his forthright support of UNESCO, his criticism of Senator McCarthy and various other right-wing causes. Huntley's sponsor, a coffee firm, was threatened with a boycott. But liberal groups rallied to Huntley's support, and the coffee company stood right behind him. Their sales actually increased during the controversy when Huntley's supporters urged their friends to buy the product. The protesting group was not large enough to offset the effect on sales.
A different type of controversy arose in 1954. Judge Dorothy Kenyon, a prominent liberal, accepted an invitation to appear on a panel discussion show with Godfrey P. Schmidt, entitled "Answers for Americans," Mr. Schmidt is president of AWARE, Inc. Two days later Judge Kenyon called the program office to inform the director that she had discovered "Answers for Americans" to be a Facts Forum show. She explained that she was a member of Americans for Democratic Action and that the "national policy" of that or- ganization "bars" its members from appearing on any Facts Forum programs.
The case was referred by Facts Forum to the American Civil Liberties Union as a "shocking case of blacklisting." But, after an investigation, the ACLU found that "Miss Kenyon's action consisted only of a decision by a person invited to be a participant not to take part in a program after discovering that it was sponsored by an organization opposed by her organization, the ADA."
88
"Clearance"
EVER SINCE BLACKLISTING in radio-tv began, "clearance" has been possible. Dozens of persons who were at one time "unemployable" have been put back to work, often after months and even years of anguish-ridden idleness. Performers listed in Red Channels and denounced furiously in Counterattack, the American Legion's Fir- ing Line, the Brooklyn Tablet, the American Mercury and similar publications have been found acceptable again. They have been "cleared."
"Clearance" is never a lonely operation. The artist who "clears" himself must do so to the satisfaction of those responsible for blacklisting him in the first place. He must "clear" himself in such a way as to assure potential employers that they are not going to run into difficulty if they hire him. Sponsors must feel certain that those who originally demanded he be blacklisted now consider him "cleared."
A New York public-relations expert who has guided more than a dozen once-blacklisted performers to the "right people," explained his role this way:
"If a man is clean and finds his way to me the first thing I do is examine his record. I look particularly to see if it includes charges that he is a member of the Communist Party. I want to find out if he is 'clearable.' Once I am convinced that he is not a Commu- nist, or if he has been a Communist, has had a change of heart, I ask him whether he has talked to the FBI. If he hasn't, I tell him the first thing he must do is go to the FBI and tell them everything
89
he knows. I tell him to say to them, 'I am a patriotic citizen and I want you to ask me any questions you have in mind.'
"Then I find out where he is being blacklisted — where it is he can't get work, who in the industry is keeping him from working, and who outside the industry has made him controversial. If, for instance, I find it is the American Legion, I call one of the top Legion officials and tell him this man has come to me for help and says he is innocent. The official may say to me, "Why this guy has 47 li stings and I know people who say they don't believe him.' But I say, 'I'm going to have him make a statement.' Then, when the Legion guy gets the statement and has read it, I call and ask him for a note saying he is satisfied by the statement. He will usually say, 'I won't put anything in writing but if anyone is interested have him call me.'
"Somewhere along the line I may find George Sokolsky is in- volved. I go to him and tell him that the Legion official thinks this boy is all right. If I can convince Sokolsky then I go to Victor Riesel, Fred Woltman [New York World-Telegram and Sun staff writer] or whoever else is involved. When I've gotten four 'affi- davits' from key people like these, I go to Jack Wren at BBD&O and to the 'security officer' at CBS.
"I wait a few days, then I telephone Wren. He may say to me, 'You're crazy. I know 15 things this guy hasn't explained.' I ask him, 'What are they?' and he says, 'He didn't come clean.' So I send for the guy. He comes in here and he moans and wails and beats his head against the wall. 'I have searched my memory,' he will say. 'I have questioned my wife and my agent. There's not a thing they can remember.'
"I call Wren back and he says, 'When your boy is ready to come clean I'll talk to him.' In that case we've reached a dead end. My boy has been cleared but he can't get a job. I know cases where victims have sat around eight to ten months after 'clearance' before they got work."
90
A second possibility, the "clearance" guide pointed out, is that Wren will say, "I think you are right about this boy, but what do you want from me? I can't hire him." In that case, the public- relations man said, the victim has to find a friend who is casting a television show and is willing to put him on the air to test his "clearance." "If the attempt backfires and protests come in, the guy is through."
"Last of all," the guide said, "there is the possibility that Wren will pick up the phone and call a casting director or producer and say, 'Why don't you give Bill a part hi the show?' " Once the black- listed performer appears on a CBS television program, it is notice to the industry and to all the producers that he can be used.
The public-relations expert concluded: "A guy who is in trouble, even if he has a good case for himself , will stay dead unless he finds someone like me who can lead him through the jungle of people who have to be satisfied. He has to persuade these people one by one. Usually he finds his way to a lawyer and that comes a cropper, or he finds a public-relations man or press agent who doesn't have the confidence of the 'clearance men,' and he's only wasting his time."
Without access to the chief "clearance men" (who are often the same persons who make the damning indictment), the blacklisted artist can get nowhere. These particular men are all-important. They have the power to wound and the power to heal the wound. They can hold off right-wing criticism, which in turn cuts off pres- sure on sponsors or networks when a "controversial" artist is put back to work. If the performer is well known he may need not only their passive sufferance but active support to re-establish him- self with that section of the public given to telephoning networks and writing protest letters to sponsors. So it is fairly meaningless to say that no one can clear a blacklisted artist but the artist himself.
What are the qualifications for a "clearance man"? His own anti- Communist credentials should be recognized by the groups which
91
stimulate blacklisting. He must be acceptable not only to other "clearance men" but to the networks' and advertising agencies' "security officers." His word must mean something to persons like Laurence A. Johnson, the powerful Syracuse grocer, who hold the economic weapon which seemingly sends terror into the hearts of network and agency executives. His "clearance" must stick with right-wing editors, columnists and public speakers. It is especially important that they stick with various Hearst columnists, the editors of Counterattack, and the officers in charge of the American Le- gion's anti-subversive committees. In some cases the "clearance men" have sold their services as public-relations consultants and speech writers to the artists going through "clearance." In other cases "clearance" activities are based on disinterested service.
A blacklisted artist who wants to clear himself might see any one of a fairly select group of men whose connections and influence confer upon them the powers of absolution. Some are more influ- ential than others, but all have "clearance" notches in their belt.
The most professional of all is Vincent Hartnett — professional not in the sense that his word carries the most weight (actually the leading "security officers" on Madison Avenue take a sniffy attitude toward Hartnett) but that he makes a full-time occupation out of what for others is merely a sideline.
Hartnett describes himself as a "talent consultant." This does not mean that he passes on a singer's voice, a musician's ability or a chorus girl's legs; it means that agencies and sponsors check with him on the political backgrounds of people being considered for a job. His fees are modest — $5 for a first report on an artist, $2 for additional checking. Where thoroughgoing investigation seems called for, the price may go as high as $20.
In an interview with Jack Gould, radio-tv editor for The New York Times, Hartnett "emphasized that he did not accept money from artists personally who might wish to avail themselves of his
92
advice in countering pro-Communist allegations." The interview was reported in the Times, June 20, 1955. Two years earlier, when a well-known actress wanted to do just that, Hartnett wrote back to her attorney that further research would be necessary in order to insure a complete report, and to authenticate information. The fee for such a complete report would be two hundred dollars. This would include a thorough analysis of Miss X's left-wing connections in the theatre, as well as listed affiliations with activities cited as Communist-front. It would also include photographic copies of key exhibits. If the actress really wished to correct her past mistakes, it would be necessary for her to review her entire record — whether obtained from Hartnett or from whatever source she wished. Hartnett said there were a few other experts in this field, in addition to himself, who would be able to make such an analysis, but he imagined their fees would be the same as his, and in some cases a bit higher. . . .
Hartnett was a pioneer. He wrote articles about "Red infiltra- tion" of radio-tv and the theatre for the Catholic magazine, The Sign, before Red Channels appeared. He has written on the same subject for the American Mercury and the American Legion Maga- zine. He takes credit for Red Channels (which he once described as "no more than a primer on the subject, containing not a tenth of the material in my files"). He is currently engaged in writing a big- ger and better Red Channels to be called File 13, Volume 2. The book, like File 13 (Volume 1) which he circulated a few years ago, is intended for a special clientele and, so the rumors go on Madison Avenue, will sell for several hundred dollars.
Hartnett may be the most widely criticized man in the radio-tv industry, because he is frankly in the business of exposing people with "front records" and then, later, of "clearing" them — or as the Times writer delicately put it, "advising them on how to counter pro-Communist allegations." But some of Hartnett's sharpest critics are the well-paid "security officers" on Madison Avenue. Certainly
93
Hartnett has not grown rich on his profits, and he is a hard-working, thoroughgoing researcher. He seems to have hundreds of facts in his head and dozens of documents at his fingertips.
Hartnett has been aptly described as a "walking filing case." Mention a performer's name and he will snap back with something like this — "Oh, yes, he endorsed People's Radio Foundation, cited in the American Legion Summary in November, 1949; signed a letter put out by the American Committee for Indonesian Inde- pendence — you can find that in a 1946 issue of the Indonesian Re- view; sent a greeting to Mother Bloor on her 75th birthday — a Birthday Souvenir Book was published; and, yes, he signed the Open Letter for Closer Cooperation with the Soviet Union, re- ported in Eugene Lyon's The Red Decade, page 249."
Hartnett believes fiercely in what he is doing. Even in ordinary conversation he sounds like a Counterattack editorial. He hammers away at the "Communist conspiracy" (never simply "communism" or the "Communist Party"), the "CP transmission belt," the Party's "coffers" (never its bank account) , etc. He distinguishes sharply be- tween "liberals" and "anti-Communists." Questions about the civil- liberties aspect of blacklisting he dismisses as so much anti-anti- communism.
In April, 1951, Hartnett was called as the first witness to appear before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee investigating "Subversive Infiltration of Radio, Television and the Entertainment Industry." He declared that between 1936 and '50 "the Actors Equity Association appeared to be dominated by the pro-Commu- nist faction." But the situation at the time he was testifying, he said, was considerably improved. "However, it is still critical." Hartnett proceeded then to cite the voluminous Communist records of two radio writers. One he described as a "triple-threat man of the Com- munist Party"; the other, a one-time president of the Radio Writers Guild, he described as "the next important pro-Communist writer."
Hartnett received no public credit for his part in preparing Red
94
Channels, but he let it be known the idea was his and after the book appeared he became a recognized authority on communism in the radio-tv industry. He lectured frequently before veterans and Catholic parish groups and was formally honored by the Catholic War Veterans a few years ago. His fame has spread outside New York. When a Hollywood actress tried to find out how she could be cleared for radio-tv, Roy Brewer himself referred her to Hartnett.
Some of the general dislike for Hartnett in radio-tv circles can be traced to the inquisitorial tone of his letters. He was criticized openly during an AFTRA (American Federation of Television and Radio Artists) meeting on this score. In the spring of 1955, Leslie Barrett, a television actor, spoke in favor of the AFTRA resolution to condemn AWARE, Inc. "There is disagreement," Barrett said, "but few will speak out. Why? Because 'I've got a little list,' as the saying goes, and if your name is listed, you do not work. Needless to say the situation is deplorable. One is afraid to look at anyone,
to speak to anyone, to protest on the floor You come hi silently,
you leave silently."
Barrett — a shy man not in the habit of addressing union meet- ings — was enthusiastically applauded by the radio-tv performers for breaking the silence. Before he sat down, he read a letter he had received from Hartnett a few weeks earlier. After receiving the letter, the actor said, he experienced nothing but "grief and anxiety ... I can neither hold my food nor sleep."
The letter from Hartnett went this way:
In preparing a book on the Left Theater I came across certain infor- mation regarding you. A photograph of the 1952 New York May Day Parade shows you marching to the right of [Barrett deleted the name]. It is always possible that people who have in good faith supported certain causes come to realize that their support was misplaced. There- fore, I am writing you to ascertain if there has been any change in your position. You are, of course, under no obligation to reply to this letter. As a matter of fact, I am under no obligation to write to you. However, my aim is to be scrupulously fair and to establish the facts.
95
If I do not hear from you, I must conclude that your marching in the 1952 May Day Parade is still an accurate index of your position and sympathies . . .
Barrett's lawyer wrote to Hartnett and stated that the actor had never marched in a May Day Parade in his life and had no Com- munist leanings or sympathies whatsoever. Hartnett answered by writing directly to Barrett:
To my surprise, I received today a letter . . . from Mr. Klein, a lawyer ... I say I was surprised because I wrote my . . . letter to you, not to Mr. Klein or any other member of your family ... I have no way of establishing that Mr. Klein is authorized to speak for you . . . Parenthetically, is Mr. Klein the same Mr. Klein who in 1939 resided
at , Brooklyn, New York and who is listed as having signed
the CP nominating petitions, New York State and/or New York City, 1939-40? Enclosed is a photograph of a group of marchers on the New York May Day Parade. The gentleman at left center, underneath red arrow marking, certainly looks to me like you. It is possible, I am mistaken. There may be some other actor, unknown to me, in New York, who closely resembles you . . .
Barrett's lawyer was not the Klein who signed the nominating petition. Barrett was not the actor (if indeed it was an actor) who was photographed at the May Day Parade. Hartnett was finally satisfied on both these counts and wrote Barrett saying he hoped the actor "incurred no expense by the unnecessary move of calling in a lawyer. This only muddied the waters."
Other actors during the same whiter received letters from Hart- nett demanding that they "explain" past political associations under penalty of being "listed" in his book on the Left Theater. In some cases the demands were backed up by a threat that if they did not satisfy Hartnett that they had "changed their positions," he would publish the "facts" — and this, he hinted strongly, would certainly have an effect on their popularity and/or employability.
An actor who had appeared in a play put on at a rally honoring several Soviet visitors during the very early postwar period received
96
one of these letters from Hartnett. Hartnett stated that if he did not hear from the actor he could only presume he was still high in the councils of the Communist Party. The actor, a man who never took any interest in politics, was stunned. The half-forgotten perform- ance Hartnett resurrected seemed entirely innocent at the time. The Soviet visitors honored at the meeting were on a tour of the United States sponsored by the State Department. The actor merely re- peated a role he played in a radio drama during the war, and he did so at the request of a radio producer.
This performer, who sought the advice of a lawyer, also incurred some "unnecessary" expenses. The price he paid hi anxiety about his future was something else again.
Hartnett's position on blacklisting is clear: he is for it. Like many others, he balks at the word but accepts the fact. Not long ago he stated his belief that "no provable Communist Party mem- ber or provable collaborator of the Communist Party should work on radio or television."
Several questions arise here: the question of Communist Party membership is clear enough, but what is a "collaborator"? The "proof" consists in the kind of citations found in Red Channels, but "collaborator" remains a word open to several meanings. Is signing a Communist-sponsored petition "collaboration"? It could be clearly so, if that was the intention of the signer. But the whole problem of a front is that it is a front and not the real thing; by its very definition, non-Communists are drawn in. In the very begin- ning Red Channels made no distinctions between willing collabo- rators and "dupes" unwittingly brought into the Communist orbit. It could make no such distinction without the ability to read the human heart. The confusion is cleared up, according to Hartnett, when the "dupe," ready to admit his "mistake," lends himself to anti-Communist activity.
But Hartnett remains the judge of what is and is not "anti-Com-
97
munist." For instance, when a reporter asked him whether he would accept participation in Americans for Democratic Action as an ex- ample of anti-communism, he answered candidly no, he would not. The ADA, he said, may be anti-Communist vis-a-vis world com- munism but it is "soft on communism" at home; it is part and parcel of the "world- wide collectivistic, socialistic movement." By the same token, an erstwhile "dupe" trying to gain his credentials as an anti-Communist could not afford to support the AFTRA resolution to condemn AWARE, Inc., however much he may have believed that such groups as AWARE hinder rather than help the fight against Communism.
The point of course is not whether Hartnett's political opinions are wrong or right. The point is that some of those who do not honestly go along with them either have to conform or risk un- employment.
The following is a statement Vincent Hartnett offered to the author of this report:
It is initially noted that "blacklisting" in its traditional trade-union sense refers to denial of employment because of union activities. In this correct sense, there is no known "blacklisting" of talent in radio-tv. By application, "blacklisting" has been recently used to convey denial of employment because of subversive activities. It has also been used to connote denial of employment by Communists or pro-Communists to individuals who have actively opposed communism.
No real understanding of this question is possible unless one first understands that since the 1930s there has been a "cold war" in show business between the Communists and their allies on the one hand, and active anti-Communists on the other hand. Communist literature is replete with descriptions of Communist efforts to penetrate the theatre (in its broad sense) and use "art as a weapon in the class struggle." The conflict with the Communist forces in the theatre was first joined in an important manner in Actors Equity Association. The conflict spread to radio in an important manner in 1943. The Communists stepped up their efforts in radio in 1946, following receipt of a directive
98
from the Soviet Union. (See my article, "They've Moved In on TV," American Legion Magazine, January 1953, pp. 26 ff.)
As a basic tactic, the Communist forces sought wherever possible to give available jobs to party members or collaborators with the Communists. Patronage has been of the essence of Communist suc- cesses in the theatre. Those who had jobs to give did not need to be Party members; they could be "sympathizers."
That such patronage was used seems a conclusion warranted from an examination of the casting on certain TV shows. The old "T-Men in Action" series (from its inception until late- 1952) habitually fea- tured known Communists and individuals with significant Communist- front records. So did the old "Big Story" series, which was also for- merly on radio. (Cf. op. cit., p. 26.)
Complementary-wise, these series in the period noted featured few, if any, active anti-Communists. It is not stated that the series deliber- ately "blacklisted" active anti-Communists: by hiring a relatively very high incidence of Communists and Communist-fronters, they achieved the same effect.
In recent years, other TV series which have manifested a high incidence of Communists and Communist-fronters, and a low incidence of active anti-Communists, comparatively speaking, are "Danger," "Philco TV Playhouse," and "Omnibus" (a project of the Ford Foundation).
There was probably nothing illegal in the effective "blacklisting" of active anti-Communists on such series as the old "T-Men." By the same token, there is nothing illegal in efforts to favor anti-Communists on radio-TV. Such efforts have been dictated by the necessity of resisting Communist efforts to penetrate radio-TV and use those media for Party purposes. The war against Communist subversion is not just five thousand miles away. It is more immediately right here in New York.
99
The Syracuse Crusade
LAURENCE A. JOHNSON is A BUSINESSMAN of some prominence around his home town of Syracuse, New York. He owns and oper- ates four self-service grocery stores and is active in civic affairs. His shrewd, colorful merchandising has won the admiration of other store owners all over the United States. But to the "security offi- cers" on Madison Avenue, Johnson is a good deal more than a suc- cessful grocer. He is at once a nuisance and an asset, for he keeps a watchful eye on their hiring practices and, in doing so, bears out their common contention that blacklisting, however regrettable, is economically necessary. "If we don't screen out controversial peo- ple," as one executive put it, "we will be hurting the sales of the product we are trying to sell. Therefore, not to screen would be unbusinesslike and violate the trust of stockholders."
This "economic" argument was stated in its clearest form by Paul M. Hahn, president of The American Tobacco Company, makers of Lucky Strikes. Hahn wrote not long ago:
The company which I represent is a publicly owned commercial corporation, engaged in the manufacture and marketing of trade-mark consumer goods, which are offered for sale to the general public. It is owned by some 85,000 shareholders. Its management is put into office by the shareholders ... for the purpose of safeguarding and increasing the value of their investments, of earning profits which can be paid to the 85,000 owners in the form of dividends. To perform the respon- sibility which has been entrusted to it, this management must strive to maintain and improve the Company's business, which means main- taining and increasing the sales of its products to the purchasing public.
100
When a company such as ours uses its corporate funds to sponsor a program on television or radio, it does so with but one purpose — to reach the largest possible number of the public as its audience, and to present its products to that audience in the most favorable light . . . since it is the function of an artist employed on such a program to please rather than to displease, and since the successful promotion of consumer products depends in large measure on the impression left by sponsored entertainment, it follows that we would be wasting share- holders' funds were we to employ artists or other persons who, under company auspices, are likely to offend the public . . . We would dis- approve of employing an artist whose conduct in any respect, "politi- cal" or otherwise, has made him or is likely to make him distasteful to the public.
Laurence A. Johnson, who takes action when a "controversial" person does appear on radio-tv, uses economic threats to get his way. In addition, much of his effort has gone into making obscure and unknown performers "controversial." The Syracuse grocer, therefore, not only lends credence to the "economic" argument for blacklisting; generally speaking, he is the argument.
This is not to say that were there no Johnson there would be no blacklisting. Far from it. Without him though the industry spokes- men would be hard put to illustrate their dollars-and-cents case. But everyone can see that when the grocer hi Syracuse objects to how his suppliers use their advertising money, he does something about it. He visits, phones, telegraphs or writes networks, adver- tising-agency executives and sponsors themselves. He does not say he will remove the products of the offending sponsor from the shelves of his Syracuse stores, but he does threaten to hang a sign over their product, pointing out that these manufacturers employ "subversives." That is usually enough to get action. Moreover, Johnson encourages other store owners to join hi the crusade and urges shoppers to write letters threatening to withdraw patronage if sponsors do not heed his judgment about radio-tv talent.
For all their influence, Johnson and his Syracuse supporters do
101
not command a wide popular following. For example, they cam- paigned against Edward R. Murrow in one of their publications (Spotlight) and urged readers to send protests to Murrow's spon- sor, the Aluminum Company of America. But Alcoa, according to Arthur P. Hall, vice-president, did not receive a single protesting letter as a result of the Spotlight story.
Johnson is well known in the supermarket trade, and on many matters his word counts for something. From the beginning, then, a number of large corporations employing radio-tv talent cooper- ated willingly, almost eagerly, with his crusade. From time to time the grocer has released portions of his correspondence with busi- ness executives who had only good words for his efforts to police the air waves. For instance, a vice-president of Kraft Foods Com- pany wrote him on September 8, 1952: "It is indeed heartening to know that you are continuing your crusade ... I sincerely hope you keep up the good work." On another occasion the President of the General Ice Cream Corporation wrote: "I think it is wonderful that you have taken this interest hi ferreting Communists out of our entertainment industry. I wish there were more people like you."
Armed with letters like these, Johnson became a power on Madi- son Avenue. Few if any of the advertising executives have faith in his judgments. But with their most important clients in the grocer's corner, even fewer are prepared to ignore him. As the legal head of one agency put it: "He gets the sponsors worried. He puts the heat on them. Then they put the heat on us. How much of that can you stand?"
Johnson's crusade began in 1951. His influence grew rapidly. And as he became more of a power, his demands increased accord- ingly. In time, even some of the corporation executives who once praised his efforts had all they could take. In a letter to a district manager, one corporation executive with responsibility for an im- portant television program, outlined some of the difficulties he had in dealing with Johnson. The executive wrote:
102
Briefly, Mr. Johnson for several years has been taking it upon him- self to put various pressures on food manufacturers, and others using television, to force them to refrain from engaging certain individuals accused by Mr. Johnson and his group in Syracuse of being identified with the Communist movement. I believe it is obvious to you, as well as to [our] customers that [our] company would not knowingly hire a Communist, a subversive, or an objectionable character of any sort . . . The only difference of opinion between Mr. Johnson and us is that we are not willing to accept his accusations or statements as sufficient reason for putting any individual on a blacklist . . . The facts of the matter are that Mr. Johnson is desirous of our hiring certain individuals whom he names, to tell us how to run our business — individuals who, like himself, are fighting communism and Commu- nistic talent in the theatrical world. He also has asked us from time to time to hire certain talent, people active in this same crusade, but, unfortunately, people with questionable talent, most of whom we can- not use. On the other hand, he overlooks entirely the fact that we have used some of his people on many occasions. It is apparent that Johnson is not interested in our desire to work with him and cooperate — he and his group want to dictate our policies . . .
Up and down Madison Avenue there are steady complaints about Johnson's interference. But the industry has never tested the grocer's power in any meaningful way. On the few occasions when he has been challenged he appears to have come off second best. Still, the chances of his power's being fully tested are not good. For in Johnson, the Madison Avenue fraternity sees a germ of reality worth a thousand opinion polls. The man from Syracuse saves the industry from looking like a punch-drunk boxer who takes a swipe at the air here and there, then staggers back from imagined blows. With Johnson in the ring, the industry spokesmen do not have to feel foolish when someone asks just how real the "economic" threat is. That argument is based on pleasing "the public"; for purposes of de- fending blacklisting, Johnson is the public. He can always be cited if one asks what the industry is afraid of. In going straight to the spon- sor, Johnson hits the exact nerve center. No sponsor wants his prod-
103
uct associated with "controversy." "All Johnson did," said one network executive, "was to turn around a can of coffee and discover that there, lo and behold, were Mr. Chase and Mr. Sanborn."
When Johnson began his personal crusade he already had a num- ber of factors in his favor. His was a typical medium-sized business in a typical medium-sized market. Yet he was close enough to New York, and the home offices of his suppliers, their advertising agen- cies, and the radio-television networks, to make his presence felt. (Industry and sponsor executives and performers asking "clear- ance" who have spent time and money on personal visits to Johnson might be grateful that he was not rooted in the deep South or far Northwest.) What is more, he was eminently respectable.
The Syracuse grocer's adventures on Madison Avenue began when his son-in-law John Buchanan was re-called to serve with the Marines in Korea. It was Johnson's daughter, Eleanor Buchanan, who started the operation early in 1951. Her father helped mightily, providing contacts, mimeographing equipment, money for mailings, etc. Later he took the lead personally and made his famous sorties into the big time of Hollywood and New York alone.
On June 12, 1951, Mrs. Buchanan sent a letter to American Legion Post #41 in Syracuse. The letter indicated there had been a meeting between Johnson, his daughter, an official of Post #41, and other Legion members. In it, Mrs. Buchanan said she was compiling material from Red Channels, Counterattack and news- paper clippings: "Dad and I were pleased that you agree manu- facturers can be persuaded to remove Communist sympathizers from their advertising programs on radio and television. As you gentlemen pointed out in our meeting last Friday, the task is too great for me alone. I am grateful for your aid. . . ."
About the same time, Mrs. Buchanan sent a letter to Syracuse housewives. It was addressed to "The Lady of the House" and carried with it several pages of material quoted from Red Channels and Counterattack and a copy of a Daily Worker story on a Madi-
104
son Square Garden rally against the Parnell Thomas Committee. Then, on July 24, 1951, in a talk before the Syracuse Kiwanis club, Mrs. Buchanan explained her position this way:
"My husband, a veteran of World War II, never received a penny for being a member of the Inactive Reserves. When he was recalled to service last October, it meant leaving the small town on the Hudson where we'd been so happy. The company in which he'd been found to be a valuable asset, my small but interesting teaching position at Vassar College, all our plans for the future. And I know that Jack detested military life. He's very unmilitary about hanging up his clothes. But so many of our friends were reservists, I just took it for granted. Only now, faced with the pros- pect of being apart from one another, I asked him one day why on earth he'd ever signed up in the Reserves. He answered quietly and simply in one word. 'Patriotism.' '
A few sentences later, Mrs. Buchanan quoted from a letter from her husband in Korea: "I have not been sick, which is a blessing in this land of loose bowels and bodies. The flies go from the dead Gook twenty feet away, to the fish heads he left behind, to my C rations, so I'm glad my stomach is strong."
"Well," concluded Mrs. Buchanan, "my stomach isn't that strong. It sickens me to know of those banquets engineered by Red sympathizers on radio and television to raise funds for their hench- men, and those do-nothing patriotic citizens who discuss the wrongs of the world over a dinner table while my quiet, unassuming Jack ate his lunch, surrounded by dead Chinese."
Mrs. Buchanan fired a crusade that reached out far beyond Syracuse. She not only pleaded with the Kiwanis, the American Legion, the Rotarians, the Advertising Club memhers, and house- wives in Syracuse to follow her lead, she sent protest letters with "documentation" to sponsors, including Philco, Kraft Foods, Bor- den and Stopette, as well as to NBC and CBS. She issued a bulletin listing a number of actors who, she said, should be given preferen-
105
tial treatment in casting offices. (Among the performers named on this "white list" was Charlie McCarthy, Edgar Bergen's dummy.)
In September, 1951, Syracuse Post #41 of the American Legion set up an Un-American Activities Committee and two months later began circulating a newsletter which later became Spotlight. Spotlight relies