Editors needed

President Biden, in his farewell address warning of a new American oligarchy that owns a “tech-industrial complex,” talked about the threats to a free press. He mentioned that “editors are disappearing.” I have often told people who worry about evils of the “media,” meaning social media, entertainment and maybe cable TV news, the key is the disappearing figure of the editor. Editors are what distinguishes journalism from everything else. This idea made me dig up my article in the 2006 Encyclopedia of Journalism on “Editors.” If you have time to read this little history, be my guest.

Editors

The title of editor is conferred on a wide variety of individuals who determine what appears in newspapers and magazines. The term editor today can refer to a newspaper’s top executive or a lowly copy editor. Every news department, such as those responsible for a newspaper’s sports, features, or business sections, usually has its own editor to assign or approve stories and manage reporters.

By the early nineteenth century, the editor was the most important (and often the best known) figure at a publication. He (most were men) often combined several roles that were “editorial” in quite different senses of the word. A traditional editor was the paper’s opinion-leader, executive, spokesman, literary stylist, and on occasion the publisher or owner. Such were the eclectic pioneers of the mid-nineteenth-century penny press, notably James Gordon Bennett Sr. at the New York Herald and Horace Greeley at the New York Tribune. Starting around the time of the Civil War, editorial functions began to be divided up; a publisher would hire an editor-in-chief, while the daily management of a newsroom would fall to a managing editor. A century later, the various jobs of the old-fashioned full-service editor had been further split and downgraded into specialties within a corporate structure.

Still, a publication’s top editor was its public face. As late as the 1980s, executive editors such as Ben Bradlee at The Washington Post and Abe Rosenthal at The New York Times could attain a certain nationwide fame, even though they did not determine the editorial position or business side of their publications. But the next generation of executive editors, in an era of falling circulation and media-industry consolidation, had little fame and that only among journalism insiders. Top newspaper editors of the early twenty-first century were typically corporate functionaries or, at best, fighters of a losing cause for professional autonomy and higher newsroom budgets. Many lost their jobs to that cause. In the heyday of mass-circulation magazines, meanwhile, the personality of a single editor often stamped the character of such periodicals as The New Yorker (under Harold Ross, then William Shawn), the original Vanity Fair of the 1920s and 1930s (under Frank Crowninshield), Time (under Henry Luce, then T. S. Matthews), and The Saturday Evening Post (under George H. Lorimer). Since then, the age of the titan magazine editor has passed.

Origins

The earliest definition of “editor,” a word derived from the Latin verb edo (to bring forth into the world), applied to the publisher of a literary work. An editor as “one who conducts a newspaper or periodical publication” began to appear in 1803, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. This was when the older archetype of printer-proprietor was being replaced by a new type of newspaper chief. In colonial America, the men and women who published the first newspapers and magazines were called printers. With the proliferation of printing presses, heads of newspapers took on more literary status and the new title of “editor.”

John Fenno, a Bostonian, became the first editor of the Gazette of the United States, the mouthpiece of the new Federalist government and, in particular, of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. To advance an opposition party, James Madison, a key author of the Constitution, along with then–Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, sought an editor to create an anti-Federalist newspaper, the National Gazette. They installed Philip Freneau, a patriot-poet who had been Madison’s college roommate. Fenno and Freneau were editors of the new style rather than printers who happened to own the mechanical means of communication.

The 1790s and the next three decades, which have been called “the dark ages of the partisan press,” continued to produce editors under the sway of political interests and patronage. But political spoils and control by factions did not dampen the individuality of editors from this era, most notably Aurora editors Benjamin Franklin Bache and William Duane, English gadfly William Cobbett, Wasp editor Harry Croswell, American Mercury editor Noah Webster, and Columbian Centinel editor Benjamin Russell. Each of these editors tended to be colorful, vitriolic, and abusive in a tradition of personal and partisan journalism that would continue throughout the nineteenth century.

In the 1830s, editors of several big city newspapers embraced innovations that greatly increased circulation and revenue. They severed ties with political parties, added amusing human interest stories of crime and sports aimed at working-class readers, dropped their daily price from six cents to a penny, and charged advertisers more as circulation grew. The leaders of this “penny press” revolution were founders, owners, and publishers of their own newspapers, but also proudly bore the title of editor. They did not renounce traditions of violence or partisan politics. Bennett deliberately provoked rival editor James Watson Webb to assault him twice in the streets of New York, which Bennett, as victim, gleefully reported in his paper. Greeley, founding editor of the New York Tribune, embraced some political agendas with a childlike fervor. But these editors largely relied on advertisers, not political machines, as their chief patrons. They were careful to appear neutral in covering politics, at least in their paper’s news reports, and sought entertaining news for the masses as well as timely information for the elite. The modern editor was henceforth to be a guardian of journalistic independence and an authority on developing content with mass appeal.

As with newspapers, American magazines have often mirrored the personalities of their editors. In Victorian America, editors such as poet James Russell Lowell and novelist William Dean Howells at the Atlantic Monthly helped set the intellectual agenda of the cultural elite, while female editors such as Sarah Josepha Hale (who got Thanksgiving to be a national holiday and wrote “Mary Had a Little Lamb”) at Godey’s Lady’s Book and Miriam Folline Squier at Frank Leslie’s Lady’s Magazine (who took the name of her husband, Frank Leslie, after he died) constructed America’s culture of the “domestic sphere.” The editors of successful magazines in the first half of the twentieth century, especially editors who launched new titles or built huge circulations, tended to be unusually competitive and innovative in their market strategies and graphic design, but also culturally conservative and attuned to the values of the American heartland.

The modernization of newspapers after 1900 saw editors-in-chief diminished in number and in importance. Publishers consolidated newspapers into chains; reformers emphasized schooling and professional standards, thus reducing the importance of editors as on-the-job trainers. After World War II, newsrooms of metropolitan newspapers achieved their greatest energy, size, and professional standards. Editors of various ranks now ran the show. Late City Edition, a 1947 book by editors at the New York Herald Tribune, describes the three main news desks controlled by editors: local or city desk, national or “telegraph,” and foreign or “cable.” It was an all-male club until well into the 1970s. “The best editor is the man with an insatiable desire to know the facts of a matter, and an instinctive tendency to be interested in the matters his readers care about,” the Herald Tribune‘s city editor wrote in the book. Most major newspapers by this time had separated the function of editorial page editor from that of news editor, generally called managing editor or “M.E.” Under the managing editor came department editors responsible for particular topics—arts, women, sports and business, for example. These editors were usually anonymous to the reader, yet influenced the paper by hiring staff and shaping the news, from story assignment to copy editing and headline-writing.

The skills of a good editor are distinct from those of a reporter or writer, yet successful newspaper editors invariably emerge from the ranks of news reporters with little or no formal training to be an editor. Even heirs of newspaper-owning families who are being groomed for editorships take a turn as cub reporters. Jonathan Daniels, for example, was a Washington correspondent for the Raleigh, North Carolina, newspaper his father owned, The News & Observer, before the younger Daniels became editor in 1933. Daniels served as editor in two stints for a total of 29 years, writing editorials and overseeing news while his two brothers managed the business side. Management skills, increasingly important for any newspaper editor, sometimes pushed a good editor into the job of publisher or company president. Lee Hills, for instance, markedly modernized the Miami Herald as its managing editor, then executive editor, from 1942 to 1966, systematizing recruitment, bringing colorful design to the paper, and sharpening its news writing. For the next 16 years, he was a publisher or president within the paper’s chain, Knight Ridder. His ideas gradually permeated the chain through the many editors who followed in his footsteps.

In contrast to the inventive and eccentric editors of the nineteenth century, however, successful newspaper editors of the twentieth century fit comfortably into the conventions of newspaper production and management. Few editors tried to invent anything as new as the penny press. Ralph Ingersoll, who had been an editor at The New Yorker and Fortune, attempted a radical experiment in newspapering with PM, an afternoon tabloid that relied on wealthy patrons instead of advertisers. Ingersoll’s PM, which accepted but did not solicit advertisements, was greatly admired for its coverage of modern cultural topics, its quality art and photography, and its literary writers. But it never gained the circulation or influence Ingersoll had sought, and folded after eight years, in 1948.

Some Notable Newspaper Editors

James Gordon Bennett Sr. (1795–1872)

Bennett launched the New York Morning Herald as a penny paper in 1835, and during the next 37 years as its star reporter, top editor, and irrepressible salesman, helped to invent the modern concept of “news.” With an entertainer’s flair for writing and a cynic’s understanding of public appetites, Bennett changed American journalism by his example, showing how newspapers could be far more democratic, sensationalistic, and profitable. Rivals waged a “moral war” against him, and the diarist George Templeton Strong summed up the elite view of Bennett when he wrote that no one had more debased American journalism. Yet Bennett was hailed as a genius of the profession he helped create. A gangly, cross-eyed Scottish immigrant, Bennett learned editing at the Charleston (South Carolina) Courier, the New York Enquirer, and the New York Courier. After many business failures of his own, he threw everything into his vision of a paper that cost a penny, like Benjamin Day’s New York Sun, but outdid all its competition with a frenzy of news for every class of citizen. Bennett turned over management to James Bennett Jr. in 1866.

Benjamin C. Bradlee (1921–)

Bradlee was a high-profile editor who ran The Washington Post during the heady years when the paper exposed the Watergate scandals of the Nixon Administration from 1972 to 1974. A prep-school and Harvard graduate from Boston, Bradlee began reporting for the Post in 1948. Later, as Newsweek magazine’s Washington bureau chief, he and the magazine’s business editor, Osborn Elliott (soon to be the magazine’s editor for more than a decade), convinced Post publisher Philip Graham to buy Newsweek in 1961. Bradlee, a friend and neighbor of Senator John F. Kennedy, enjoyed being at the center of Washington’s social life from the time Kennedy became President. Named managing editor of the Post in 1965, then executive editor in 1968, Bradlee flourished with the support of Katharine Meyer Graham, the publisher after her husband’s death. Bradlee led the paper’s aggressive coverage during the Pentagon Papers case of 1971 and the Watergate years. His reputation was damaged by the fabricated “Jimmy’s World” feature story about an eight-year-old heroin addict by staff reporter Janet Cooke, for which a 1981 Pulitzer Prize was retracted when Cooke confessed that she had concocted the story’s main character. Bradlee was the last of the flamboyant big-city newspaper editors. When he retired in 1991, editorial writer Meg Greenfield complimented him as one who had “made the Post dangerous to people in government.”

Arthur Brisbane (1864–1936)

Brisbane was the highest-paid and most widely read editor under yellow-journalism publisher William Randolph Hearst. The European-educated son of a wealthy Buffalo, New York, family, Brisbane became the chief advisor and front man for Hearst. He had proved himself a facile writer for Charles Dana at the New York Sun and then for Joseph Pulitzer at the New York World before becoming editor of Hearst’s Journal in 1897. There, he was the first newspaper editor to reach a circulation of 1 million. He also wrote articles for Hearst’s Cosmopolitan magazine and penned a popular editorial column, syndicated as “Today” in Hearst’s papers and hundreds of others, giving him an estimated readership of 30 million. Critics derided his columns for their banal wisdom, but his concise style made a rising new middle class “think they think,” as he once described the goal of an editorial.

Turner Catledge (1901–83)

Catledge was a Mississippi-raised journalist who worked at The New York Times for nearly forty years, half of that as managing editor, executive editor, or vice president. He retired in 1970, moved to New Orleans, and wrote a memoir, My Life and The Times. Catledge expanded the Times‘ cultural and national coverage, giving attention to the South and the issue of civil rights before any other national news publication did so. He was the most influential of a series of top editors at the Times from the South, such as Edwin James, Clifton Daniel, and Howell Raines, reflecting the Southern origins of the patriarch of the Times‘ dynasty since 1896, Adolph Ochs.

Charles A. Dana (1819–97)

Dana enjoyed a long and influential career as a gifted newspaper editor, first at Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune from 1847 to 1862, and later as editor of the New York Sun from 1868 until his death in 1897. His interest in radical politics led him to join the New England Transcendentalists at Brook Farm, where he edited The Harbinger, and to cover the revolutions of 1848 in Europe, where he recruited Karl Marx as the London correspondent for Greeley. Dana also played a key role in the Lincoln administration during the Civil War, as assistant secretary of war. But his great talent was not his political vision, which was spotty and often vindictive. Rather, Dana raised the quality of newspaper writing, making the Sun one of the best of the major papers of the period. He virtually invented the “human interest story.” Dana, who was the first managing editor ever, believed that “the invariable law of the newspaper was to be interesting.”

Horace Greeley (1811–72)

Greeley was the founding editor of the New York Tribune, his national “pulpit” from which he crusaded for various reforms and rebuked the other penny papers for their money-grubbing sensationalism. The Tribune, he announced when it started in 1841, would advance the interests of “the People” and avoid the “immoral and degrading Police Reports, Advertisements and other matter which have been allowed to disgrace the columns of our leading Penny Papers” (Stoddard, 61). He crusaded for temperance, workers’ rights, an early form of socialism, and an end to slavery. Raised poor in New England, Greeley failed to make a profit from The New Yorker, a weekly literary magazine he ran for seven years in the 1830s, or from the Log Cabin, a propaganda sheet he edited for his Whig Party mentors Thurlow Weed and William H. Seward. He ran the Tribune with an energy, eccentricity, and idealism all his own, “no man’s man,” and it flourished in that spirit. He was the first editor to allow by lines, and his published interview with Mormon leader Brigham Young is considered a breakthrough in reporting. Other editors of renown began their careers under Greeley at the Tribune, such as Charles N. Dana (later editor of the Sun) and Henry J. Raymond (who launched The New York Times in 1851). Other notable correspondents for Greeley’s Tribune were Karl Marx, in London, and feminist Margaret Fuller.

Ralph McGill (1898–1969)

McGill was called the “conscience of the South” as editor, columnist, and publisher at the Atlanta Constitution from 1938 through the years of the civil rights movement. A former college football tackle and Marine from Tennessee, McGill was sports editor at the Constitution in the 1930s. Doing feature stories on his own time for the newspaper, he witnessed the sad waste of rural poverty and racial hatred in the South during the Depression. He traveled to Europe on a Rosenwald fellowship in 1937, seeing firsthand the relationship between an un-free press and the rise of Nazism. His page-one columns in the Constitution—more than 10,000 were published by the time he died at age 70—drew on his love of rural culture but also applied an almost religious morality to race questions that few others would write about. In the old style of Southern editors, he was at once the paper’s public face, political captain, and literary voice. His criticism of white bigotry and his eventual support of the civil rights movement brought local hate mail, but national fame. He won a Pulitzer Prize in 1959 for editorial writing and published a historical memoir in 1963, The South and the Southerner.

Carr van Anda (1864–1945)

Van Anda was managing editor of The New York Times during the formative period of 1904–32, when his mathematical and scientific intellect helped make it the most respected newspaper in the world. Van Anda, a child prodigy, had dropped out of Ohio University and abandoned his plans to become a professor of physics or Greek to work on the mechanical side of several Ohio newspapers. He then switched to reporting, in which he excelled by his detective-minded diligence. But it was as night editor at the Baltimore Sun and the New York Sun where his energy and news sense achieved the most. Later, as managing editor of The New York Times, he kept a night-editor’s hours, scooping other papers and catching last-minute errors. Adolph Ochs, who had bought the Times in 1896 with the goal of rejecting sensationalism for “all the news that’s fit to print,” found in van Anda his ideal of an independent, intellectual news chief. Ochs gave van Anda a good salary and a free hand. Van Anda is credited with making the Times the admired newspaper of record it became.

Henry Watterson (1840–1921)

Watterson was editor of the Louisville Courier Journal for a half century after the Civil War. He was a “Kentucky colonel”–style orator with a message of reconciliation he called the “New Departure.” His message was like Henry Grady’s editorial campaign for a New South, but more partisan, less visionary, and drawn out over a much longer career. As the son of a Tennessee congressman, Watterson learned to love politics and the Democratic Party as a child who literally played in the halls of the U.S. Capitol. His service in the Confederate army was desultory but placed him in the company of legendary generals Leonidas Polk, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and Albert Sidney Johnston. He developed an extravagant writing style as editor of a Confederate propaganda organ called the Rebel, followed by stints as editor of a Cincinnati newspaper and an editorial-opinion writer at the Nashville Banner. In partnership with Walter N. Halderman, he helped merge Louisville’s Courier and Journal and made the combined paper one of the best and largest in the South. He viewed the editorial page as the heart of any newspaper, and had as many as ten editorial writers on staff. He and his partners sold their stock in the Courier-Journal to Robert Worth Bingham in 1919.

William Allen White (1868–1944)

White became nationally known as a prototype of the kind of editor most likely to remain unknown beyond the county line—the proprietor-editor of a small-town newspaper in the American heartland. For nearly 50 years he ran and wrote for the Emporia (Kansas) Daily and Weekly Gazette, with a circulation of less than 8,000, but achieved fame by having his editorials reprinted throughout the country. White’s columns appealed to a wide audience because of their earthy, clear style and his wholesome-seeming political values. After an apprenticeship under William Rockhill Nelson at the Kansas City Star, White made a name for himself in 1896 with a widely reprinted editorial called “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” It was a sarcastic attack on the Populist revolt against industrialism in farm states like Kansas. Under the later influence of reform-minded President Theodore Roosevelt, White turned more progressive in his politics. But he remained a loyal, active Republican most of his life.

Some Notable Magazine Editors

Edward W. Bok (1863–1930)

Bok edited the Ladies Home Journal from 1889 until 1919, during which time it became the best-selling magazine in history. He filled it with functional advice in home management and cheery fiction by celebrated writers. Born in Holland and raised in New York, Bok left school at age 12 to hustle his way, Horatio Alger style, from stenographer to writer to editor at various enterprises. In the Journal, as in such books as his Pulitzer Prize–winning memoir, The Americanization of Edward Bok (1920), he preached a sunny philosophy that treated poverty as a spur to character building and embraced mild reforms, such as an anti-billboard campaign, that rarely challenged the status quo.

Helen Gurley Brown (1922–)

Gurley Brown was the editor of Cosmopolitan for 32 years, turning a failed old general-interest magazine in 1965 into an ad-thick, self-help monthly for sexually liberated young females. Her Cosmo, which she called “feminist” and not a woman’s answer to Playboy, was focused mainly on how to win male attention in any way that felt good. Without nudity, it developed a sex-manual style that a Tom Wolfe novel later satirized as “some sort of pornographic parody of Cosmopolitan.” The daughter of a poor Ozark couple, Helen Gurley succeeded by her wits and charm as an unmarried secretary and advertising copywriter in Los Angeles. She argued for such feminine self-reliance in her 1962 best-selling book, Sex and the Single Girl. By then, she was happily married to Hollywood producer David Brown, who helped her seek ways to repeat the book’s success. The Hearst Corporation rejected their proposal for a new magazine, but let her revamp and edit Cosmopolitan. The female consumer she targeted and influenced was the type she described in Sex and the Single Girl as economically “a dream,” because this individual was not a “parasite” in a family but living alone and supporting herself. “You need an apartment alone even if it’s over a garage,” she advised in her 1962 book.

Norman Cousins (1915–90)

Cousins was editor-in-chief of the Saturday Review, a national weekly literary review that grew from a circulation of 20,000 when he began there in 1940 to 650,000 when he fell out with new owners in 1971. Cousins, an irrepressible optimist, returned in 1973 as owner and editor to revive the bankrupt magazine as a biweekly focusing on science and education. It suspended publication in 1982, except for a brief revival in 1986. The Saturday Review had started in 1924 as a continuation of the New York Evening Post‘s literary supplement after the newspaper shut down the supplement. But it flourished only under the sway of Cousins’s boyish faith in well-educated magazine readers who were not of any intellectual clique but simply loved discussing ideas. Cousins later applied his intellectual optimism to the idea that a sick patient’s attitude could contribute to self-healing. He experienced this personally in overcoming a potentially deadly form of arthritis, and promoted the idea in several popular books and as an adjunct professor of biobehavioral science at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Clay Felker (1925–2008)

Felker was a magazine editor credited with inspiring national and city magazines with his 1960s-style creativity in graphic design, New Journalism, sophisticated satire, and service coverage of where to eat, shop, and live. With designer Milton Glaser, Felker exerted this influence mostly as editor of New York, a slick weekly he launched in 1968 as a stand-alone version of the New York Herald-Tribune‘s earlier Sunday supplement. He lost the magazine to media mogul Rupert Murdoch in 1977, but went on to edit other magazines. Felker, the son of two newspaper editors from St. Louis, Missouri, had been a reporter for Life, worked on the 1954 creation of Sports Illustrated, and edited features at Esquire before becoming editor of the Herald-Tribune supplement in 1963. His brash style, on paper and in person, both inspired and intimidated. One former employee said Felker grew bored faster than anyone she ever met, forcing staffers to make their ideas seem interesting within ten seconds. Projecting an in-your-face elitism in print was his great insight into how magazines could survive in the age of television. Print, he said, had become a niche product for well-educated, affluent people with elitist attitudes.

Henry R. Luce (1898–1967)

Luce, the founding editor-in-chief of Time, Inc., created three or four of the most influential magazines of “the American century,” a phrase he coined that expressed his somewhat imperialistic view of the twentieth century. Born and raised in the isolated American culture of a Presbyterian mission in China, Luce started Time magazine in 1923 with his friend from prep school and the Yale Daily News staff, Briton Hadden. The success of this news weekly, the first of its kind, made both men millionaires before they were 30. After Hadden’s untimely death from a strep infection in 1929, Luce launched Fortune magazine and established “experimental” departments to investigate other innovations in magazine forms. Fortune, a pro-business magazine paradoxically flourishing in the Depression, published high quality profiles of businesses with artful photography. Luce launched Life in 1936, buying the name from a former humor magazine, and Sports Illustrated in 1954, proving that excellent writing and photography could appeal to sports fans even if it covered many sports those readers didn’t care about. Luce also created “The March of Time,” a radio and newsreel dramatization of the news that ran from 1931 until 1951, and subsidized a commission chaired by Robert Hutchins to study threats to freedom of the press. Luce retired as editor-in-chief at Time, Inc. in 1965, after it had become the largest magazine publishing company in the United States.

S. S. McClure (1857–1949)

McClure created and edited McClure’s Magazine, a ten-cent monthly that introduced the reform-minded journalism of the early twentieth century known as “muckraking.” He claimed that the alignment of powerful exposés of political corruption and industrial exploitation by Ida Tarbell, Ray Stannard Baker, Lincoln Steffens, and others in McClure’s, starting around 1903, was an unplanned “coincidence.” But it was really the result of his long preparation. McClure’s energy, gut instinct for new markets, and good relations with literary journalists put him at the center of this progressive movement of the press. Although McClure struggled financially, his talent for publishing good writers in new forms changed magazine journalism. Samuel Sidney McClure emigrated from Ireland at age nine after the death of his father. He graduated from Knox College, where he met friends and lifelong business partners. In 1882, he launched what was probably the first quality niche magazine, a periodical for the new outdoor activity of bicycling called the Wheelman. He created a syndicate to sell short fiction and nonfiction by big-name writers to American newspapers. He launched McClure’s in 1893, and edited it until forced out by a reorganization in 1911, though he remained active in journalism for another 20 years.

Conclusion

Changes brought by the Internet and digital communications reshaped the various roles of editor. Magazine editors were able to take advantage of the web as a free advertisement, or tease, to draw new subscribers to their print product, which had more sensual appeal in its images and text than either newspapers or the Internet. But for the three major types of newspaper editor—corporate executive, news editor, and opinion writer—the first decade of the twenty-first century presented difficult challenges.

As an executive of a large news operation, a newspaper’s top editor was deeply involved in seeking a new business model for sustainable revenue. Executive editors had to invent—and often upgrade— newspaper websites to serve both readers and advertisers. Working out the relationship between the printed and electronic versions of the paper became a central function of senior editors. Web revenue for newspaper companies seemed to be quite limited— about 10 percent of the industry’s advertising income in 2006, with the rapid early growth showing signs of slowing. By 2008, a weakening overall economy forced many executive editors into the bleak role of overseeing major staff cuts.

News editors face an equally difficult task of finding a balance between the traditional daily news cycle of their newspaper and the instant-update pace of their webpages. Webpages can be updated with an immediacy and ease that newspapers and TV news can’t match. But filing and editing stories for the web takes time away from in-depth reporting for the newspaper. Furthermore, with staff cuts, the additional work has to be done with fewer workers. One editorial response is to equip reporters with video and audio recording equipment to make them more flexible in their work, with less editorial intervention. Another response has been to separate “content”—journalistic coverage of the news—from its delivery or “platform.” This further divided news editors into “news and information” managers on the one hand and digital, audio-visual, or print editors, on the other.

In complex ways, the digital age has loosened the grip that editors traditionally had on their readers, their advertisers, and their reporters. But the flexibility and speed of evolving digital technology also gave new importance to news managers—editors— who could navigate the changes and meet the needs of consumers for information and storytelling.

Doug Cumming

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Pluralism

I have been thinking of boundaries, those imaginary lines that our public life has constructed. In the poetry of Robert Frost, whose entire body of work I will never stop learning from, boundaries are the rock wall he and his neighbor repair each spring because “good fences make good neighbors.” Boundaries are the edge of one’s property, the “Witness Tree” at the corner of one of Frost’s farms that reminds him of the “truth” that he is “not unbounded”:

Though circumscribed with dark and doubt—
Though by a world of doubt surrounded.

I find an important kind of truth in Frost’s poetry because only there does truth radiate with the paradox of competing forces, throwing meaning outward like fading echoes into the far reaches of life. Good fences make good neighbors, but something (our longing for connection, our spirit of play?) “wants it down.”

John McCutcheon, Walter & Doug Cumming

Boundaries were at the center of American politics in our recent election. The southern border, in particular. Trump is an embodiment of P.T. Barnum bunkum, “The Greatest Show on Earth,” so he knew instinctively that “Build the Wall” was effective shorthand for the fear we have of being “invaded” by worlds of foreign cultures and strangers. He was lucky (as he always seems to be) that in fact, hordes of immigrants, legal and not, came pouring over that border in the first three years of Biden’s presidency. The disaster had a number of causes, some Biden’s anti-Trump impulses. In any case, when Biden finally capitulated to a compromise on the border, Trump was lucky to get his allies to kill it, and to have most Americans miss the fact that Biden, finally, stopped the “invasion.” Too late.

I can think poetically about boundaries, fearlessly, because I am cushioned in my very comfortable life. I have cozy quilts of education that puts Frost’s poetry on the shelf with my well-annotated Oxford Bible. My life in Decatur “flows on in endless song/Above earth’s lamentation,” as John McCutcheon sings in his early recording of “How Can I Stop From Singing?”

Yesterday, for example, was overflowing with this life for me. John McCutcheon himself hired three of us local musicians to play “When the Saints Go Marching In” to his banjo plunking at the funeral of his sister-in-law, Tersi Agra Bendiburg. John is married to Tersi’s younger sister Carmen, both sisters having immigrated from Havana as children fleeing Castro’s Revolution when they were children in 1964, under the Cuban Refugee Act. They were sponsored and welcomed by First Baptist Church of Decatur, whose pastor spoke at the funeral.

That’s the kind of immigration policy and welcoming church I wish people – voters – would support today. I see the homeless beginning to bundle themselves on the portico of Decatur United Methodist Church now that it’s getting cold. I saw another single bundle like that on the porch of First Christian Church of Decatur, where we played our jazz concert last night. Whoever was under that blanket outside had a worn-looking Bible beside his blanket. I asked William, the long-time music director, about this camper. He’s ok, he said, but didn’t know the man’s name yet. William was dressed in a feminine jacket with rings of fuzzy applique on the sleeves and a fur collar. His gayness, when one is as comfortable as I am with my identity and Christianity, was of course not a put-off but its opposite, an occasion to make a new friend.

But I’ve been thinking about boundaries as an important truth in our public life. Boundaries are a reality, a truth that Democrats need to acknowledge not only as the basis for our Constitutional rule-of-law but as essential for people’s sense of safety, for protection of the soul. People with fewer resources and comforts know when borders are being too-easily crossed. It gives them a feeling of rising crime, of their familiar culture being dissolved, of their values being disregarded.

Borders are important, but so is another reality, which is our world increasingly crowded with a multiplicity of cultures, religious traditions, and beliefs. Jewish and Christian tradition says to welcome the stranger. Further, Jesus said not to resist evil – whether it’s violence or the implied force of a wall – but to turn the other cheek and give more than a beggar asks for. But who is “the stranger”? In a world of multiple religious beliefs, and evaporating beliefs – are not we as much strangers as “them”? We are all strangers.

I look for a word to describe a value that transcends the paradox of borders. The word “pluralism” may be the best, but doesn’t have the appeal of a deep human value – at least not yet. It smacks too much of an academic abstraction. But it is the value that seems the one we need the most. (Most desperately, today, in places of savage chaos like Sudan, or the hopeful chaos of a liberated Syria.) Dig into the ideal of pluralism in America, and you find that American philosophy called Pragmatism, the animating spirit of action and unfolding truth behind the Age of Reform from Grover Cleveland to Teddy Roosevelt. Barack Obama took pluralism as his message in a lecture he gave in Chicago the other day. He said problems emerged with the rise of identity as a soul-forming element and the jostling of identity coalitions that followed.

“[P]olitics,” Obama said, “wasn’t just a fight about tax rates or roads anymore. It was about more fundamental issues that went to the core of our being and how we expected society to structure itself. Issues of identity and status and gender. Issues of family, values, and faith…. [A] lot of people…began to feel that their way of life, the American way of life, was under attack” just as increasing economic inequality made them think that other people were benefiting at their expense.

It’s about action, commented Heather Cox Richardson, rather than just words, because action requires that people invest themselves in a common project. “It won’t eradicate people’s prejudices,” Obama said, “but it will remind people that they don’t have to agree on everything to at least agree on some things. And that there are some things we cannot do alone.”

“It’s about agency and relationships.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Three Poems

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A freedom song, for Election Day

On this morning of Election Day, 2024, I am waving the flag of a poem by Richard Wilbur called “On Freedom’s Ground: A Cantata.” Read it aloud, slowly with a touch of drama. Record yourself doing so, as I did a sleepless night ago. Play it back to yourself.

I write this without having listened to readings of the poem, or musical versions (it seems to be the libretto of a chorale). I have not read any of the commentaries you can read online. I stumbled on the poem this week in Wilbur’s New and Collected Poems. It gives me the stirring poetry that – I have to admit – I have wished to hear from Kamala Harris’s closing arguments for American unity, to “turn the page” on Trump (as much as I am confident and grateful that her disciplined message will win the day).

The poem has five sections. The first, “Back Then,” is a loose-metered sonnet with a beautiful description of the Statue of Liberty’s island, previously Bedloe’s Island, during primordial Time. The words he uses suggest a provocative idea, that Nature, without Man, operated in a state of utter slavery – “subject of the tide,” “vassals of the harnessed wind,” “slaves to hunger.” Before the mind of man “came ashore,” Where was the thought of freedom then?

What follows can be debated, that it was an English thought/ That there is no just government/ Unless by free consent,/ And in that English cause we fought. This was written for the Centennial of the Statue of Liberty, circa 1986. Today, I hear the criticism of saying “freedom” and “democracy” (popular sovereignty) are English ideas. How Euro-concentric! How chauvinistic!

After that lovely description of Nature in the first part, Part Two, “Our Risen States,” runs smack into the related problem of any poetry written for a nationalistic cause. True poetry can’t be patriotic, as Yeats knew. Wilbur knew this too. But after all, Wilbur was the Poet Laureate of the United States, and had certain duties to fulfill. It’s true that “free consent” in government was an English idea, if not exclusively, being in the work of John Locke that I once browsed worshipfully in a large early 1700s edition in the airless stacks of a university library.

He also salutes France’s help in the Revolution – Lady Liberty was, after all, a gift from France – and merges “liberty” in both languages as it led the French to rise/And beat with angry cries/ On prison doors and palace gates.

(I’m remembering now that Wilbur translated French plays by Moliere, and also wrote one of the most theologically powerful hymns in the Episcopal hymnal, “And Every Stone Shall Cry.”)

Part Three, “Like a Great Statue,” mourns for the dead who died for this country, but frames this in a fresh and complex way. The poet knows they did not think “liberty!” in the blink of time before they forgot us. No. Maybe they thought of Saturday night whiskey, or a beloved trout-stream, family voices at home, or the scent of sawdust. Whatever it was, we betrayed them, robbed their graves of a reason to die by the sins of our American history.

Here, the list is familiar to the sackcloth of our Biden years: pushing out the native tribes, breaking treaties, slavery (tersely put as “The image of God on the auction block”) . . .

The immigrant scorned, and the striker beaten,

The vote denied to liberty’s daughters.

Then this section changes to pride and praise, something I hope a President Harris era restores in our voices. Be proud at least that we know we were wrong,/That we need not lie, that our books are open. And: Praise to this land for our power to change it. To “learn what we mean and make it the law.” The last image of this section is King in the shadow of the Washington monument, free at last for Black Americans “to cast their shackles down” and wear the common crown of liberty.

Then it’s “IV. Come Dance.” A jig and jangle of “whatever spins around” and “Whatever takes the cake.”

Finally, then “V. Immigrants Still.”

Here, the seabirds and waves that were enslaved Nature in the first section can scud and wheel about “Our lady” Liberty with “A bright, cavorting air,/ And have the look of ransomed things.” As if humanity, free, can impart even on Nature herself a measure of creative freedom, at least “To our free eyes.”

Not that the graves of our dead are quiet,

Nor justice done, nor our journey over.

We are immigrants still, who travel in time,

Bound where the thought of America beckons;

But we hold our course, and the wind is with us.

May our good old Democratic Party – no longer uttering “white fragility” or muttering of “micro-aggressions” – win not only the Presidency but a House and Senate eager to solve some wicked problems. And may it do so with the sound of this poetry.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Brief candle, against dark politics

On April 3, 2008, a mother I did not know held her newborn daughter for 27 minutes of life in a Virginia hospital.

The newborn, in utero, had developed with a chromosomal disorder called Trisomy 18, or Edwards Syndrome. The mother knew this from amniocentesis. She knew that this tiny girl would have so many defects of essential organs, including the heart, that life expectancy at birth was virtually zero. A late-term abortion would have been understandable. But Cathleen Warner, a Roman Catholic mother of two boys, chose an option she had learned about in her desperate online research. She would go through with a C-section and be with her daughter for whatever time God gave her. It lasted 27 minutes. For Warner, it was the worst, and best, 27 minutes she will ever experience in life, she said.

I don’t weep easily over the radio, but I wept when I heard this story on NPR’s “On Point” today.

The program was about parinatal palliative care, an approach to the birth of babies so physically compromised that they can live for only a day, or hours or minutes.

I first heard about this form of hospice while I was on a Christian retreat in Virginia: Hospice for a dying newborn. The host who owned the retreat farmhouse also supported a parienatal hospice program, she said.

What’s that, I asked.

When she explained it, my instincts as a journalist perked up, having been the kind of writer who loves long-form stories that touch the human heart. Would a family anticipating the deeply private poignancy of this experience ever give a writer permission to document it, even after-the-fact? I never followed up on that idea.

But it came back to me listening to Cathleen Warner tell her story on public radio.

My emotional tears may also have been salted with anger – election-stress anger. The program framed its subject, perinatal hospice, around what former President Donald Trump had been saying. In his debate with President Biden on June 28, Trump said “they” (meaning Democrats, or maybe undocumented migrants) will allow abortions up to the seventh, eighth and ninth months and even after birth. “They will take the life of a child after birth.” He cited an unnamed “former governor of Virginia” on this. Later, debating Vice President Kamala Harris and at a rally, he pumped this up to be “execution after birth,” and now he was citing an unnamed former governor of West Virginia.

It turns out, the former Virginia governor he had probably heard about, through right-wing filters, was Gov. Ralph Northam, a pediatric neurosurgeon who made the mistake of describing in medical terms what happens when a mother goes into labor with a severely deformed nonviable fetus. “The infant would be delivered,” he said in a radio interview in 2019. “The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Cathleen Warner did not need to have her baby resuscitated nor did she need to have a discussion. Her perinatal hospice experience was what it was supposed to be.

I can only imagine the intensity of that experience.

But I understand something of its spiritual nature and the blessing of having the presence of hospice when a child dies. My wife and I also lost a daughter, who also had a chromosomal defect. She lived a rich life, longer than her doctors or statistics thought possible.

Around that April in 2008 when Cathleen Warner was in a Virginia hospital with tiny Erin Warner resting in her arms, our daughter Sarah, then 17, was getting chemo in a hospital in Atlanta and awaiting a bone-marrow transplant. The transplant was successful, while I was the one to receive her high school diploma that spring in Lexington, Va., where I stayed for my teaching job.

Seven years later, when Sarah was working in New York, a massive seizure revealed a brain tumor. It turned out, the genetic mutation she carried since birth was associated with all three of the cancers she fought, with amazing stubbornness and courage, until she died last December at 33. She was in a mountain house where she wanted to be, surrounded by family and friends and music, under sensitive hospice care.

What struck me most about Cathleen Warner’s story was her understanding of life as a gift, no matter how brief or long. We were gifted with 18 years of Sarah after she was first hospitalized with bone cancer in her right arm. A mother has a special relationship to such a life, and to its mortal end. It is a relationship that a politician can never express, whether their rhetoric is “pro-life” or “pro-reproductive rights.” All I can say about Trump calling perinatal hospice care an execution is this: “Shame! Shame on you and, at this late date, on all of your pious voters!”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Sam Hose case, 1899

In a 1963 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, I read an account by Ralph McGill, who was editor and publisher of the Atlanta Constitution when I was growing up in Atlanta, of his interview with the distinguished black scholar W.E.B. DuBois in Accra, Ghana. DuBois was 94 at the time, and would die later that year, a disillusioned but dignified exile who had renounced his American citizenship and turned African Communist.

DuBois told McGill of his early days as a sociology professor at Atlanta University in the 1890s. One day in April 1899, DuBois was walking to the Constitution office with a letter of introduction to Joel Chandler Harris, an editor there at the time. But then he saw something in a store-front window that sickened him: the severed fingers of a man who had just been lynched. “I saw those fingers . . . I didn’t go to see Joel Harris and present my letter,” he told McGill. “I never went!”

It’s a famous scene in DuBois’s life, possibly a turning point as his literary and academic gifts became increasingly edged with resentment, with distrust of white society and a marathon determination to fight. This was four years after Booker T. Washington had famously held up his hands in a historic speech in Piedmont Park (as the Cotton States Exposition site would become), spreading his fingers apart as a metaphor for social segregation (which he conceded as a peace offering to the white South) on the metaphorical hand of “mutual progress.” DuBois respected Washington, but hated that “Atlanta Compromise.”

The fingers DuBois saw in the shop window were souvenirs of a lynching outside Newnan, in Coweta County. The case of Sam Hose, a black farmhand who had killed his white boss with an ax, had already received a great deal of coverage from the Constitution before Hose was lynched in broad daylight on April 23, 1899, before a crowd of perhaps as many as 2,000 jubilant citizens. The reason DuBois was going to see Joel Chandler Harris was to complain about the incendiary coverage the newspaper gave to the 10-day manhunt. The Constitution had offered a $500 reward, and published a description of the crime by the victim’s brother-in-law.

Fifteen years ago, I reviewed a research paper that a student wrote about the Constitution’s role in the Sam Hose case. “The South’s Standard Newspaper,” a century before I worked there in the 1990s, had adopted the style of sensational crime coverage so popular in the New York World and New York Journal. So the newspaper published the brother-in-law’s description of Sam Hose splitting his victim’s skull “to his eyes,” then knocking one of the children “six or eight feet,” dashing another, a baby, to the floor, and finally raping the wife “literally within arm-reach of where the brains were oozing from her husband’s head.”

The brother-in-law was not present, and was not a trustworthy reporter. However, a muckraking black reporter named Ida B. Wells-Barnett, whose investigations of lynching around the South at this time proved to be highly credible, led a report on the case based on interviews of witnesses and other available evidence. The report, Lynch Law in Georgia, claimed that Sam Hose never entered the family’s home or touched the wife or children, but killed his boss, Alfred Cranford, in self-defense during an argument in which Cranford threatened him with a pistol. When he was finally captured and brought by train from Griffin, a terrified Sam Hose told a Constitution reporter the same version of events that Wells-Barnett would later publish. When the mob brought Hose before the wife’s mother, who asked him why he killed her son-in-law, he told her the same thing.

The excited throng offered to lynch the man right there in the older woman’s presence. She declined the offer. So they hauled him off to a clearing just north of Newnan, where he was chained to a pine sapling, stripped, and divested of several pieces of anatomy that were passed among the euphoric citizenry. A circle of firewood and this victim of Georgia’s extra-legal justice system were then doused with kerosene and lit a-fire. Hose’s only words during this final torture, according to the Constitution: “Oh my God! Oh, Jesus!”

It’s hard to imagine such community-wide, daylight savagery a mere four generations ago, looking at suburban Coweta County today. This was not some secret Klan activity, or the work of pathetic lowlifes, like the two Mississippi men who got away with Emmet Till’s murder in 1955. This was an entire community, like the town in Shirley Jackson’s gothic short story “The Lottery.”

Who stood up against it? Not the newspapers. Perhaps a case could be made that a few decent souls tried to stop the madness. Governor Allen D. Candler had dispatched the militia to Palmetto to try to prevent the lynching, though he had blamed black criminality as much as white vigilantism for Georgia’s epidemic of lynching. Former Governor William Y. Atkinson, a Newnan resident, had pleaded with the mob, ineffectively, to let the law take its course. These efforts remind me of how Governor John M. Slayton was moved by conscience to commute the execution of Leo Frank in 1915, though he could not stop Frank’s lynching in Cobb County in 1915. Weak leadership without followers. That’s what we had in Georgia in the worst of times.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Crypto- klepto-mania

In the spring of 2014, I took a class of 14 students to New York City for three days to visit magazine offices. This was the first six spring-term courses that became my most popular and successful teaching at W&L, “The Magazine: Past, Present and Future.” (One of the students in that first class went on to become an editor at Garden and Gun.)

One thing I noticed about New York City in those days when the World Trade Center had become a sunken memorial, replaced by a Freedom Tower that would house Conde-Nast magazine offices, was this: New pencil thin skyscrapers had sprung up like dead sunflower stalks. I found out that these were a new kind of residential tower, thin because they didn’t need the multiple elevator shafts that office towers needed. Who had the money to underwrite these buildings and buy the condos within? For one, corrupt oligarchs from post-Soviet Russia, I was told. They needed a safe haven to launder their money, and the best place in the world for that was New York real estate.

Later, when Libby and I were driving between Lexington and Decatur a lot for my retirement move in July 2022, we stopped for a lunch visit with Linda Watt, a North Fulton High classmate who had gone to Vanderbilt and then into the Foreign Service. (At one point, she was the U.S. Ambassador to Panama.) During the time of lawless capitalism in the post-Soviet carnivale, she was manager of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. She described the corrupt wealth that everybody knew was making billionaires out of dark figures you could see in the restaurants loudly displaying their ephemeral wealth.

It turns out, before Robert Mueller became a byword to MAGA fanatics because of how Trump and AG Bill Barr turned his unread report into a “hoax” and nothing-to-see, he was the FBI director. In 2011, as FBI director, he issued a report on the money that was being invested in those weird residential skyscraper in New York.

He told the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City [Heather Cox Richardson dug this up] that globalization and technology had changed the nature of organized crime. International enterprises, he said, “are running multi-national, multi-billion dollar schemes from start to finish…. They may be former members of nation-state governments, security services, or the military…. These criminal enterprises are making billions of dollars from human trafficking, health care fraud, computer intrusions, and copyright infringement. They are cornering the market on natural gas, oil, and precious metals, and selling to the highest bidder…. These groups may infiltrate our businesses. They may provide logistical support to hostile foreign powers. They may try to manipulate those at the highest levels of government. Indeed, these so-called ‘iron triangles’ of organized criminals, corrupt government officials, and business leaders pose a significant national security threat.”

In retrospect, this seems a little paranoid, laying the groundwork for conspiracy theories and late-model Tom Clancy movies. But I have to wonder. Why crypto-currency – an energy-wasting digital project whose main purpose is to offer get-rich-quick schemes to nimble investors and to hide criminal profits? And why are crypto entrepreneurs now lavishing contributions on Super PACs supporting Trump and Vance? And why are Trump and Vance cozying up to the crypto capitalists (not to mention Trump’s soft spot for Putin’s Russia)?

Good thing I’m not conspiracy-minded.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Georgia votes on history’s hinge. Again.

Subscribe to continue reading

Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Georgia votes on history’s hinge. Again.

Seeing “hot button” issues coolly

Sometimes, it’s hard for people to connect the daily stuff of their own lives with Washington D.C. policies or even state-level politics. Military aid for Ukraine doesn’t seem to hamper our day-to-day struggles, but defending Ukraine against Putin’s Russia also seems remote from everyday issues, especially if politicians begin to demagogue against this commitment to our NATO allies. The rise of Axis powers in the 1930s seems long ago, and even the Cold War is easy to forget. The price of eggs seems more relevant, and if that can be blamed on Biden’s “terrible policies,” that’s an easy call.

Inflation has many causes, especially in the after-wash of the pandemic, which gave Americans a lot of free dollars to protect against economic collapse (Trump and Biden were together in this) and worldwide supply chains were choked. Coming out of the sheltering and having more money increased “demand”; meanwhile, supply chain problems crimped “supply.” Serious inflation followed. The Fed, over which Biden has no control, is using its leverage over interest rates to keep a lid on this over-heating economy. That’s all working as it should. But inflation, even as it comes down, is a powerful talking point for Trump and the Republican Party. So is “immigration,” an issue as complex as inflation until Congress has the guts and intelligence for comprehensive immigration reform. Meanwhile we can’t even get piecemeal immigration reform, because Trump sabotaged a bipartisan fix at the border as he cynically understood that this temporary measure would cool down the issue as a political weapon. Without this Congressional fix, Biden used a federal order to clamp down, which reduced illegal crossings dramatically and angered a lot of his supporters.

Trump supporters are ignoring the reduction of illegal crossings. Biden’s temporary and somewhat cynical political fixes didn’t help his standing in the polls. I hope Harris, with the sudden energy and enthusiasm she has unleashed, can show that running on Biden’s record isn’t a liability but an asset. He has been good for labor, and good for clean energy. Biden’s Federal Trade Commission Chair Nina Kahn has been brilliantly successful putting a check on monopolistic corporate power, the essential guardrail of a healthy free enterprise system. Things are working well now, considering the circumstances Biden inherited at the beginning of 2021.

Biden’s best policy successes have been about liberal spending that is in the form of “investment.” Investment is a great way to look at how our own household dollars might be spent. We can spend money three ways: on entertainment, on short-term necessities like groceries and transportation, and on investments that pay off in the future, for ourselves or our descendants. Investments are buying a house, paying the mortgage, improving the house. Other investments: Planning a career with future prospects and a sense of personal “calling”; getting married and keeping in touch with friends and community; service to church or society’s nonprofits; education, at all levels, including support for public education even if your family doesn’t use it yourself. That’s self-interest as an investment.

Many of the benefits of Biden’s policies are beginning to show, but they are hard to see because they are investments. For instance, the CHIPS Act is bringing manufacturing of computer circuitry (the cotton-textile dynamo of the 21st century) back to U.S., for good jobs and more control over supplies. How does this affect my life, right now? I can’t see it. But the freight elevator in our condo building is out of order and we are told to minimize use of the only other elevator, using the stairs when we can. The problem is that a specific microprocessor must be ordered and it won’t come until next week, according to the German company, Thyssenkrup, that manages the elevators. Meanwhile, the refrigerator in the half of the duplex we own is broken, and our tenant there is having to use a half-sized refrigerator we gave her while we wait for the repairman to get the parts he needs. It’s on order. The heater burned out and fried the thermostat. I don’t know, but I assume micro-chips are involved.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

What’s the meaning of ‘meaning’?

Subscribe to continue reading

Subscribe to get access to the rest of this post and other subscriber-only content.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on What’s the meaning of ‘meaning’?