b-52, cold war, so there's a different kind of power associated with the b-52 as opposed to other long range bombers. >> these are two friends, union and confederate, who knew each other prior to the civil war, who fought against each other at the battle of pea ridge in 1862 and here they are at age 100 sitting on the porch talking about the old days. >> we have one to the east is marked 901, the gate to the west is marked 903 and they really reflect or reference the moment of the bomb which was at 9:02. >> watch for the travels of c-span's local content vehicles every month on book tv and american history tv. and look for the history and literary culture of our next stop in jefferson city, missouri, the weekend of july 7th and 8th on c-span 2 and 3. >> each week at this time american history tv features an hour-long conversation from

c-span's sunday night interview series, q & a. here's this week's encore q & a on american history tv. this week on q & a, a professor takes on what he calls ten of the greatest misreported stories in american journalism. his name is w. joseph campbell, and his book is called "getting it wrong." joseph campbell, in your book, "getting it wrong," there's this quote. american journalism loves giving prizes to its own. why did you put that in there? >> well, i think it's true. it's absolutely the case. american journalism is a real prize-giving profession and it's -- it's -- it's one that -- some critics have said should be reined in.

it's not a -- it's not a major part of getting it wrong, but nonetheless, it's -- it's characteristic of the profession at large, to reward themselves for good work. some of the rewards, let me say, are well deserved. the pulitzer prizes every year come out in april and reward and recognize good work from the year before. very impressive work. almost always. and -- so some of these awards are well-deserved. there's just a lot of them. i'm not the first to point out how frequently journalists like to reward themselves. >> how long have you been teaching journalism? >> i've been teaching at american university for 13 years. i taught a little bit as an adjunct before that, university of hartford in connecticut. >> how many years did you work as a journalist and where? >> i was 20 years in the profession. i broke in in the cleveland plain dealer, covering the police beat at 6:00 at night until 3:00 in the morning, and worked up to the rewrite bank and then general assignment and investigative reporting. i was in cleveland until 1980

when i joined the associated press in geneva, switzerland. i was a journalist in geneva and i also had some fill-in stints, substitute reporting stints in warsaw, poland, during the early '80s, during a fascinating time when the solidarity movement was taking hold and really posing a direct challenge to soviet rule. it was an electric time. it was really a great time. i also reported from west africa for the associated press. and i also was a national reporter for the hartford current in connecticut before entering journalism education. >> before going into detail about any of these different incidents in history that you write about, would you give us -- first of all, give us an overview of what this book is about. >> the book discusses and debunks ten media-driven myths. these are stories about and/or by the news media that are widely believed and often retold. these are prominent stories about journalism and journalists. but these stories under scrutiny dissolve as wildly exaggerated.

i characterize them as the -- akin to the junk food of journalism. they're appetizing, they're appealing, they're tantalizing, but they're not terribly nutritious or healthy in the long run. >> want to do this quickly and then come back to some of them. >> okay. >> let's go down the ten. i'll read off the chapter and you give us a little paraphrase on all of this. number one, i'll furnish the war, the making of a media myth. >> that was william randolph hurst's vow at the end of the 19th century. it's a widely known story. it's the best-known anecdote in american journalism. certainly one of the oldest. it's almost certainly untrue. hurst himself denied having said that. >> two, fright beyond measure. the myth of the war of the worlds. >> the war of the worlds, october 1938 by orson wells. great radio entertainment, very inspired show. orsen wells was 23 when he did this. supposedly set off nationwide panic and mass hysteria, but on

close inspection of the available evidence, there is very little to indicate that that was the case. almost certainly false. >> three, murrow versus mccarthy, timing makes the myth. >> indeed. the murrow show supposedly stopped joe mccarthy, senator joe mccarthy, in his tracks in his communists in government witch hunt. but in reality, murrow was very late to taking on mccarthy. other journalists had been addressing mccarthy and his bullying ways for months, if not years before murrow finally took him on. so murray was very late. and he acknowledged it, too. >> four, the bay of pigs, "new york times" suppression myth. >> the notion that the "new york times" under pressure from the kennedy administration spiked or held back or suppressed its reporting about the pending invasion of the bay of pigs is the heart of that myth. and -- but close inspection, reading what the "new york times" printed, shows that they

reported an awful lot in a lot of detail. there was no evidence that kennedy ever in advance of publication asked the "times" to hold back or suppress any of its preinvasion stories. >> five, debunking the cronkite moment. >> that's one of the best-known anecdotes of the 20th century. walter cronkite's famous program at the end of march -- at the end of february 1968 supposedly altered american war policy and swung public opinion against the war and forced or prompted lyndon johnson to reconsider running for reelection. all of that is untrue. >> six, the nuanced myth, bra-burning at atlantic city. >> that was a protest by the -- it was a feminist protest, one of the first feminist protests of the 1960s, late '60s. and they protested the miss america pageant in 1968, which was held at atlantic city. and during the protest, they --

they discarded into a large trash can, which they called the freedom trash can, instruments of what they called torture for women and that includes bras and girdles and high-heeled shoes as well as issues of cosmopolitan and playboy magazines. the notion is the feminists set fire to their bras and waved them over their heads in a really fiery public spectacle. my research shows that's almost certainly untrue. if the bras and other items were set on fire, it was very briefly in the freedom trash can at this demonstration in '68. >> seven, it's all about the media, watergate's heroic journalist's myth. >> yes. the notion that two intrepid and young investigative reporters for the "washington post" woodward and bernstein, through their investigative reporting, brought down richard nixon's presidency. it's a very beguiling notion that's very appealing, delicious story, but it's untrue. even the "washington post" principles, woodward himself,

have said over the years that the post did not bring down richard nixon. what brought down nixon was a -- a combination, if you will, of forces including federal prosecutors, federal judges, the u.s. supreme court, bipartisan congressional panels, all of those were at work to bring down nixon and expose the depth and dimension and extent of the watergate scandal. about 20 people went to jail for their criminality. these were associated with nixon or working for his reelection campaign in 1972. >> eight, the fantasy panicked the news media and the crack baby myth. >> the crack baby myth. supposedly women who took crack cocaine during pregnancy would give birth to offspring who would be forever dependent and some commentators both on the political left and political right forecast that there would be this bio-underclass of dependent young people as they grew up, they would be wards of the state, essentially. a huge number of people who would be forever damaged by the prenatal exposure to

crack cocaine. it seems not to have been the case, that crack was not the -- i mean, it's not a good idea to take the stuff during pregnancy or at any time, but nonetheless, it didn't seem to have that effect. there is no crack baby syndrome, as opposed to fetal alcohol syndrome. >> number nine, quote, she was fighting to the death, unquote. myth-making in iraq. >> jessica lynch, the 19-year-old young woman who was caught in an ambush in the early days of the iraq war, and was taken prisoner and then later rescued by u.s. commando team early in april 2003. and jessica lynch's battlefield heroics were reported by "the washington post." these were quite incorrect, quite in error, and they -- the "post" story about jessica lynch fighting to the death in iraq was untrue and turned out to be

almost certainly a case of mistaken identity, that it wasn't jessica lynch in that unit fighting to the death, was another person, sergeant donald walters. >> and finally, ten, hurricane katrina and the myth of superlative reporting. >> right, hurricane katrina, this is the -- the landfall of hurricane katrina was in 2005, and supposedly the news media were aggressive in their reporting and calling attention to the defects in the response, the state, local and federal response to the hurricane. but also, in addition, the news media coverage of the extent of the damage and the extent of the lawlessness that supposedly was unleashed by hurricane katrina was quite wrong. it was hardly a moment of superlative reporting. the news media got that story quite wrong. estimates of death tolls exceeding 10,000 were wrong by an order of magnitude. the fact that while widespread

looting, widespread pillaging, raping, murders were going on in new orleans in the aftermath of the hurricane, all take what wa untrue and had the effect of impugning a people and city in the hour of their most urgent need. >> in the back of your book in conclusion, you cite a pew research center study from 17 march 2008. the composition reported among national journalists in 2008 was 8% conservative, 32% liberal and 53% moderate. where would you put yourself? >> probably in the moderate category. >> what does that mean? >> it means you neither take the extreme conservative view or more extreme liberal view. it's -- it's kind of in the middle. that data are interesting because it does point to an imbalance, obviously, an imbalance that pew and others

have pointed to in american newsrooms, that it does tend to be center left rather than any other direction. and i think that that does tend to lead to a certain element of group thinking. in american journalism newsrooms. it's a cause for some concern and probably more debate and discussion than it's been given. >> has this book been picked up by 8% of the conservatives in either the community or people in the public? they are more than 8% conservative. >> well, i hope so. i mean, i hope they're reading the book, and i hope the other 92% are as well. >> what i mean, though, isn't this proof right here that the people that are outraged about the media have been right? >> well, the book is a little more nuanced than that, and i think -- the message i try to get across, it's not a media bashing book but one that's aligned with the fundamental central objective of american journalism, mainstream journalism in this country, and that is trying to get it right. the book does try to set the record straight to the extent we possibly can.

i think it's aligned with one of the fundamental objectives of american journalism, rather than bashing the media. there's a lot of that going on, probably enough of it going on. >> acknowledgments out front. you say reed malcolm, the university of california press, asking by e-mail whether i had ever considered writing the great myths in journalism book. that's not what i want to ask you about, later on, you said, so began a collaboration that's resulted in this book, while we had our differences, reid and his colleagues at the press were always courteous, helpful and professional. that line begs a question, what differences? >> there were a couple differences about the title for one thing. "getting it wrong" was not necessarily my first choice. but, you know, the publisher has final say on that, so that was their call. >> what would have been your first choice? >> you know, that's a good question. i would like to have seen something with myth in it. the book does address and debunk media driven myths.

i think i tend toward more clunky titles, longer titles. this has the advantage of being pithy and memorable. i was hoping the subtitle would work in a reference to media myths, it instead discusses ten of the most misreported stories in american journalism. >> this is only in paperback? >> that's right. that's right. >> i want to go back to some of the ten and run some video and get you to expound a little more on it. the first up is a clip of walter cronkite from february 27, 1968. this is from what was a special. >> that's right. a special half hour report on vietnam. in the aftermath of the tet offensive, a surprise attack across south vietnam by north vietnamese and the vietcong allies in the south. it took the american military and the political establishment by surprise. cronkite went to vietnam in the aftermath of the tet offensive

was winding down and did some on the ground reporting. came back and aired this special report about vietnam. >> here's just a little bit of it, let's see what he was saying. >> okay. >> to say that we are closer to victory today is to believe in the face of the evidence the optimists who have been wrong in the past. to suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. to say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic if unsatisfy satisfactory conclusion. on the off chance the military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate not as victims but as an honorable people who lived up

to their pledge to defend democracy and did the best they could. this is walter cronkite. good night. >> your quote from lyndon johnson, he told the country in a few weeks right after that, that he wasn't going to run again. >> right, the end of march, 1968. that's right. >> if i've lost cronkite, i've lost middle america. i've been reading that for years. true? >> there's no evidence that lyndon johnson ever said that, and the power of the anecdote that's discussed in "getting it wrong" called the cronkite moment, supposedly lyndon johnson was watching the cronkite show, and at the end of it, johnson supposedly leaned over and snapped off the television set and said something to the effect of, if i've lost cronkite, i've lost middle america, or if i've lost cronkite, i've lost the war, or if i've lost cronkite, i've lost the country. there are various versions as to what he said, a lot of various

versions as to what johnson supposedly said. that in my view right off the bat is a tip-off, a marker of a media-driven myth. if you can't get the story straight as to what the president said in reaction to this, there's something wrong with it. more than that, it doesn't take much research to find out that lyndon johnson was not at the white house that night. he was not in front of a television set. he was in austin, texas, attending the 51st birthday party of governor connelly. at the time when cronkite was editorializing, lyndon johnson was making remarks at the -- on the campus of the university of texas at austin about connelly turning 51, saying well, you've reached the age all politicians, the magic number all politicians shoot for. a civil majority, 50 plus one. it's not the greatest joke ever told, but nonetheless, johnson

was not sitting in front of the tv set, he's making light with an old political ally at a black tie dinner, black tie reception in austin, texas. moreover, johnson in the aftermath of the cronkite show is out on the stump, publicly saying we should recommit to end the war in vietnam successfully. let's bring home a victory. and he's saying this on more than one occasion in the aftermath of the cronkite show. so if this was such an epiphany for the president, he really didn't make it very clear that this had changed his mind in his public comments afterwards. and the power of this anecdote lies in the immediate abrupt decisive effect that it supposedly had on johnson and his thinking about vietnam. that cronkite crystalized for him what was going on in vietnam. and that's not the case, johnson is clearly out there in the weeks afterwards saying, let's redouble our national efforts. let's recommit to a successful conclusion of the war in

vietnam. he's not saying woe is us, the war is over, we're in bad shape. cronkite told us, and now we have to leave. >> who perpetuated the story, then? did walter cronkite get an award because he said that? >> i don't think so. >> are you sure? >> i'm not sure, but i don't think he got an award because that program. it's one of the most memorable bits of walter cronkite's long career, this so-called cronkite moment. interesting thing about media-driven myths. in many cases, the principles involved afterwards say that, you know, this really didn't have any kind of effect. and for a long time, walter cronkite made that same kind of comment. he said this -- my comments about vietnam represented -- he said on one occasion, a straw on the back of a crippled camel. he made that kind of remark in his memoirs which came out in 1995, i believe. cronkite only later in life began to embrace the notion that

it did have a powerful effect. but for the most part, his reaction was, this is really -- this is not that dramatic, this really didn't have that powerful of an effect. but it's one of these neat, tidy, delicious stories about the news media and their power that's one of the reasons that it lives on. it's so compelling, it's so interesting, and demonstrates so vividly the power of the news media, that that's one of the reasons why it has endured for quite a long time. and lives on to this day. >> a year ago we had a man here named frank mankiewicz who wrote a column that didn't get much attention, in that column he said, cronkite had a meeting in the late '60s with senator robert kennedy. i sat in as kennedy's press secretary. the meeting was understood to be off the record and no one else was present. he began with an acknowledgment

of kennedy's desire not to run for president. he pleaded with rfk to change his mind to seek the white house right away, even though the election was more than a year off. you must announce your intention to run against johnson to show people there will be a way out of this terrible war. kennedy listened intently and asked cronkite his opinion of the battlefields he had seen. the war can't be won cronkite told him, but we gain on the battlefields and in the daytime, we lose to the villagers at night. what do you think the reaction would have been if the public had known that? >> this was in 1967. it was pretty clear the public sentiment for the war had begun to shift, well before cronkite's editorial comment he expressed on air. by october of '67, a plurality of americans said that sending u.s. troops to vietnam was a mistake. and the gallop organization had been asking this question since like 1965.

and had been doing so on a regular basis. by october of '67 this plurality emerged. like 47% thought it was a mistake. the numbers were pretty close throughout the fall and early winter of 1968 but sentiment had begun to shift well before cronkite took to the air. >> let's go to another one of your ten articles. this one is way back. the war of the worlds. radio only. we've got some audio to play. before we do that, set it up. >> this was on the eve of halloween. october 30th, 1938 and orson welles who is 23 years old, boy wonder is the head of the mercury theater on the air. he's directing and starring in this weekly hour long radio program. and they've been on the air since the summer of 1938 and he

and his troop begin a -- the program that night was adapted from h.g. wells' science fiction thriller, "the war of the worlds." h.g. wells set the story in england, orson welles set the story in farmland of central new jersey, near a hamlet called grover's mill. he made use of simulated newscasts, simulated radio bulletins to propel a sense of urgency, of danger, of distress and did so in a very imaginative way. and supposedly americans by the thousands, if not tens of thousands, thought the program was so realistic, so life-like that they took to the streets, they headed for the hills, in utter panic, mass hysteria gripped the country that night, supposedly. supposedly.

>> here's some audio from that broadcast. and near the end there's a four second pause, which is a part of the whole thing. so don't think there's a -- our audience think there's a problem. let's listen. >> ladies and gentlemen, am i on? ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, here i am back of the stone wall. from here i get a sweep of the whole scene. i'll give you every detail as long as i can talk, as long as i can see. more state police have arrived and throwing up a cordon, about 30 of them. no need to push the car back now, they're willing to keep their distance. the captain is conferring with someone, i can't quite see who. ah, yes. i believe it's detective pearson. yes, it is. they've parted and the professor moves around one side studying the object while the captain and two policemen advance with something in their hands. i see it now, it's a white handkerchief tied to a pole.

those creatures know what that means, what anything means. wait a minute, something's happening. something is emerging out of the pit. [ sirens ] [ screaming ] >> it's coming this way now. about 20 yards to my right. >> ladies and gentlemen, due to circumstances beyond our control, we are unable to continue the broadcast from grover's mill. evidently there is some difficulty with our field transmission. we will return to that point at the earliest opportunity. >> that's the clever -- >> great radio entertainment. it's marvelous, and it's amazing how 70-plus years later, "war of the worlds" holds up. i play this for one of my classes almost every year around

halloween time. often the students are riveted by this. it holds up marvelously well. >> in the chicago herald examiner it says radio fake scares the nation. in your piece, you say wells gleefully endorsed the notion it caused widespread panic, saying houses were emptying, churches were filling up from nashville to minneapolis. there was wailing in the streets and rending of garments. is any of this true? >> i think wells' reaction came years later. his immediate reaction to the radio show was one of astonishment, how could people take this seriously? there were tips and cues embedded in the program that would give people the notion this is what it was, radio show. a radio show that was well done.

and so he was perplexed as to how people could have confused this. some of the best research that was done on this, in the immediate aftermath, shortly after the show, indicates that maybe seven million people listened to this, and of that number, one million, 1.2 million were frightened or scared or upset by the show. that alone is a small minority. and the person who did the research didn't operationalize or define what he meant by frightened or scared. it's far from saying a mass panic seized the country that night, that hysteria reigned across the united states. most people who heard the show, recognized it for what it was. good entertainment. >> did anything change after this, in the media? >> not that i'm aware of. there were some moves afoot.

the fcc is an early entity, it's in its first days as a federal agency. there was some move to try to keep radio from doing this again. it proved to be unwieldy, improbable and difficult to navigate that kind of terrain because it does edge into censorship. newspapers in the aftermath of "the war of the worlds" saw this as an opportunity to bash radio. it wasn't a new medium at the time, but it was an upstart medium and had begun to encroach on traditional print media, in terms of its news delivery capability as well as an advertising medium. for newspapers, this represented orson wells' show represented a great opportunity to hector, to lecture radio on its responsibilities. that radio was a new medium, but it still had a lot to learn, and had a lot to grow up. it had to learn how not to mix news with entertainment, as

newspapers had learned many many years before. said some of these commentaries in the aftermath. it was a great opportunity for newspapers to bash radio. >> we have a movie clip we'll show in a moment of orson wells. how big a deal was he back then? he was in this "war of the worlds" and the movie that had to do with -- >> yes, that's right. orson wells was a prodigy. he was 23 when he did "the war of the worlds" a couple years later he comes out with "citizen kane" which is his masterpiece, he's only, what, 26? that's great work. he did terrific work. >> think "citizen kane" is the best american motion picture ever made. >> who did he play in that? >> he played charles foster kane whose character was loosely based on the life and times of william randolph hearst. i think it's clear that welles meant this to be a jab at hearst