Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, the CIA and the News Media
by S Cone
Copyright Journalism History Winter 1998/1999
The history of Radio Free Europe (RFE) and Radio Liberty (RL) is the stuff from
which good spy stories are written. During the first two decades of their
existence, the cloak-anddagger drama common in fiction was reality for the
Radios. Poisonings, espionage, bombings, sabotage, murders, and a few
unexplained employee deaths were some of the hot signs that the Radios were
deeply involved in the Cold War.1 Authors who have written about the
stations-almost exclusively insiders-have understandably chosen to include such
occurrences in their narratives. But these events hardly tell the full story
behind America's two Cold War propaganda stations.
A comprehensive account of the Radios' past has yet to be published When and if
such a work appears, it will not be complete without a full recounting of how
the established news media covered up information that RFE and RL were CIA
conduits. Historical evidence presented in this article indicates that when it
came to covering the stations, the media, often knowingly, propagated illusions,
not truth; manipulated public opinion, rather than informed it; and tried to
manufacture consent, instead of promoting democratic processes through full and
open reporting. Although events described here took place during the Cold War,
there is reason to think that today's news media continue to be silent about
government activities at America's propaganda stations.
RFE and RL began broadcasting in 1950 and 1951. Almost half a century later, the
public still knows little about them, and the media may be to blame. For
seventeen years, the news media made only scant reference to the stations. What
coverage they did give the Radios was often carefully packaged, and it helped
hide the stations' links to the CIA. Despite precautions, however, the secret
was never airtight. Speculations about a possible CIA role at the "privately
operated" Radios began circulating publicly almost as soon as the stations
began.2 Although it took nearly two decades, the rumors were eventually
confirmed when RFE was identified by the New York Times in 1967 as being
CIAsponsored.3
The unmasking of RFE and RL is significant partly because it took so long, but
more so because the press and broadcast media were, in many cases, well aware of
the connection between the CIA and the stations and simply chose not to report
the link. According to Sig Mickelson, former president of CBS News and later of
RFE/RL, Inc., thousands of people knew or had insider knowledge about what was
going on, especially as time passed.4 Among these thousands, Mickelson assures
readers, were journalists and reporters. In an interview, he acknowledged that
he himself knew about the connection while an employee of CBS.5
Beyond remaining silent, many journalists and news media members also knew about
and supported a charade that CIA and Radio officials concocted to hide the
agency's connections to the stations. The charade, a propaganda campaign called
the Crusade for Freedom, successfully persuaded thousands of Americans to donate
millions of dollars to the Radios, never telling them that the Radios were
already completely funded. The Crusade, in effect, was a cover, making the
Radios appear to be supported only through voluntary donations.
The men in charge of the Radios and the Crusade were avid propaganda
enthusiasts. They believed that propaganda, in combination with other aspects of
statecraft, was powerful enough to persuade entire populations that the American
way was the right and only true way. In the first few years after RFE began
operating, they fully expected communism to fail quickly, in part because of
their efforts.6 They were not alone in this thinking. They were supported and
aided by journalists.
An examination of both the Crusade and the Radios shows that journalists and
other media members became involved in the early 1950s, when Radio organizers
first decided to aim anti-Communist propaganda not only at foreign shores, but
also at the United States. Instead of using short-wave broadcasts, propaganda
targeting Americans was communicated largely through the Crusade for Freedom's
nationwide media campaign. Established media across the country published
articles or broadcast editorials supportive of the Crusade. Once it began, the
campaign operated on a large scale, extending to American towns and cities
across the country, spreading hope that the "captive nations" could be liberated
while simultaneously "educating" Americans about the ways of communism.7
While not exactly sinister, the Crusade for Freedom was unquestionably
deceitful. Over almost twenty years, it repeatedly took advantage of American
good will, expanding from a small, obscure program into a monstrous propaganda
subterfuge. Crusade organizers instigated parades in small towns, complete with
a shining Freedom Bell displayed along the streets. Organizers cast the bell at
a foundry near where the Liberty Bell was originally created to enhance its
propaganda value. They added other touches, too, appealing to people's patriotic
sentiments. The top of the Freedom Bell, for example, was circled with peace
laurels, and the bottom was engraved with a quote from Abraham Lincoln. People
were asked to sign Freedom Scrolls and donate Truth Dollars.8
Media support for the Crusade, both financially and editorially, was
substantial. Mickelson's research, for example, showed that advertising and
public service announcements donated to the Crusade throughout its years of
operation totaled between $9 and $17 million.9 During the early years, Crusade
officials themselves kept track of media support and published the information
for internal use in the Crusade for Freedom Newsletter. A July 1955 issue
claimed that circulation managers, editors and publishers of twenty-three
newspapers in various parts of the country had backed an independent fund-raiser
for the campaign. As part of this effort, some twenty thousand newspaperboys
purportedly raised nearly ninety thousand dollars in contributions by directly
soliciting newspaper subscribers.'o The Newsletter quoted President Dwight
Eisenhower's praise:
"The boys' campaign is not one of the normal functions of the American
newspapers," he said, "but the incident gives heartening evidence of newspaper
people's unflagging interest in the maintenance of freedom and of human hope for
peace."11
The reliability of Newsletter figures is doubtful since it would have been in
the best interests of Crusade officials to exaggerate numbers, but an
independent survey supports the Crusade's claim of having had high support from
newspapers. For February, the month Crusade officials launched their campaign in
1955, they estimated that more than 450 newspapers carried 700 Crusade ads.
Newspaper publicity, they said, had gone up from the previous year, and they
estimated that "approximately 75 percent of the major U.S. newspapers" ran
supportive articles or editorials on those days.'2 An examination of more than
twenty newspapers from across the country between February 7 and 10, 1955,
showed that more than 75 percent indeed published positive stories related to
the Crusade.3 Some wrote about President Eisenhower's support for the campaign;
others about the Crusade's attempts to raise funding. A few papers even doubled
up, running both a story and a Crusade advertisement. The advertisements were
all identical and were published as a "public service" in cooperation with the
Advertising Council.14 None of the articles in any of the papers were critical
or showed indications that reporters had investigated, even to a small degree,
the Crusade or its organizers.15
The New York Times published one of the most blatant appeals for public support
of the Crusade. Its front-page story described how the president urged all
Americans to "intensify the will for freedom" in countries behind the Iron
Curtain by supporting Crusade efforts. He said that RFE had well demonstrated
its "hard-hitting effectiveness" in winning men's minds, and indicated that
organizers hoped to raise ten million dollars to operate RFE. 16 "Without this
victory," Eisenhower urged, "we can have no other victories. By your efforts,
backed up by America, we can achieve our great goal-that of enabling us and all
peoples of the world to enjoy in peace the blessings of freedom." Other than the
president's remarks and a few details about fund raising goals, the article
contained almost no background about the Crusade itself.
Just one day before the Times article appeared, the San Francisco Examiner ran a
story describing how 800 American Legion posts throughout California planned to
back the Crusade's fund drive. The article explained that the State Commander of
the Legion urged all members in California to extend their fight against
communism by mailing in Truth Dollars." The article lacked a byline and in all
likelihood was simply an unedited public relations release. In Jackson,
Mississippi, however, the Clarion-Ledger covered Governor Hugh White's
proclamation designating Freedom Week for the state in support of the Crusade.
The paper quoted his proclamation: "All Mississippians can play a direct part in
this fight for liberty through lending just a small amount of time and
contributions in support of [the] Crusade for Freedom. . . to carry the message
of truth to enslaved people behind the Iron Curtain."ts
Beyond financial and editorial support, established media members showed their
willingness to help the Crusade and the Radios in other ways. In many cases,
reporters and media executives were on the stations' organizing committees, sat
on their boards, and worked in their newsrooms.19 Few eyebrows lifted at the
conflict of interest this created. It was only in the late 1970s that news
reports and a Senate investigation revealed that a number of journalists had
worked directly as agents and as informed conduits for the CIA since the time of
the agency's founding.20 While such direct involvement was troubling for some
members of the journalistic community, many reporters and media executives
wholeheartedly embraced working for the CIA-run Radios and had for many years.
Working for an organization funded by the CIA is not the same as actually
working for the agency itself, but both should have raised ethical concerns.
Of the high-ranking media executives and publishers who occupied positions on
the Radios' organizing committees or boards, the two most influential were
closely associated with the Time-Life-Fortune empire. The first was its founder,
Henry Luce.21 A review of Luce's publishing policies makes his affiliation with
RFE's board of directors seem only natural. He was a conservative patriot and
fierce anti-Communist. The son of a missionary, he was also a religious man, who
closely associated God's plan with America's destiny. Believing that America had
a moral obligation to lead the world, Luce was committed to spreading freedom
and democracy. After 1946, this commitment included fighting communism and
winning the Cold War.
In battling communism, Luce may have allowed his politics to overwhelm his
better news judgment. He rarely hesitated to use his magazines as forums for
expounding his views, eagerly providing space for causes he supported. He
lavishly covered the Crusade for Freedom several times in Life, for example. On
one occasion in February 1954, an article described a Crusade-sponsored mass
balloon launch, which sent 4,000 helium-filled balloons aloft over more than 400
American towns and cities, each carrying cards requesting Truth Dollar
donations.22 Crusade for Freedom newsletters duly noted Luce's generous support.
Other Time-Life-Fortune editors and members of the magazine empire's upper
management shared Luce's politics. Like him, several were also actively involved
with the Radios.23 The most notable was a man with deep associations to the
Radios: C.D. Jackson. Luce initially hired Jackson as assistant to the president
of Time. Jackson was eventually promoted to vice president of the magazine and
later became president of Fortune. He worked for Time, Inc. for thirty-three
years, heavily cross-dressing between media and politics the entire time. He
took so many leaves of absence from Time for government service that a "Fun and
Games Committee of the C.D. Jackson Hello & Goodbye Society" was established to
arrange coming and going parties for him.24
Jackson has been described as a "virtually unknown and uncelebrated publicist"
of twentieth-century style political warfare.25 His contributions to America's
burgeoning propaganda war against communism were extensive. Blanche Wiesen Cook
calls him "the chief architect of America's psychological warfare effort during
and after World War II.26 Like Luce, he never hesitated to use the pages of
Time-Life-Fortune to arouse public opinion, but in his position he had other
options available to him.27
As one of five men appointed by the president to reorganize America's propaganda
program, Jackson wielded considerable control over propaganda directed at people
on both sides of the Iron Curtain. He was fully aware of the CIA's ties to the
Radios and recommended that its cover not be destroyed. If not publicly exposed,
the Radios could take "positions for which the United States would not desire to
accept responsibility."28 The benefits of secrecy were not lost on Jackson: "We
can play tricks, we can denounce, we can take chances, we can act fast, all
things that an official government propaganda agency cannot do."29 Like
publishers and media executives, reporters also became associated with the
stations. Some sat on the Radios' boards; others joined their staffs. In many
cases, they knew about the CIA's connections to the stations and kept silent.
The best indication of this comes from the diaries of William Chamberlin Working
for the Christian Science Monitor, Chamberlin had been one of the first American
correspondents to cover the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik revolution. He
remained abroad for seventeen years, but then returned to the United States and
began writing editorials for the Wall Street Journal. In the 1950s, he accepted
a position as an RL board member.
His diary entries concerning RL meetings are largely secretive and
unforthcoming. After attending one meeting, for example, Chamberlin confided
only that RL involved "a great deal more than meets the eye."30 In reference to
a later meeting, however, Chamberlin seemed to let down his guard, providing
insight into what members talked about: "Conversations revolved largely around
the question of how finances could be covered up" [emphasis].31
Journalists who worked on the Radios' staffs also aided the cover up. If ranked
highly enough, they were made officially aware of the CIA's role in a process
that insiders called being made "witting."32 Gene Mater, a journalist who became
an RFE employee after having worked for various newspapers around the country,
claims to have been made witting. He argued in an interview that the CIA's role
at the Radios was an open secret, and because it was, being made witting only
made official what everybody already knew. He claims never to have been
conflicted about his own role at RFE and never to have considered revealing the
truth to the public. Mater committed himself to a path of non-adversarial
acquiescence, as did many other reporters and writers working for the stations.
They never publicly revealed their secret but remained wellrespected
professionals of their time.' Having the approval of "spooks" was standard
practice for journalists working inside the Radios, but it should never have
been accepted by those on the outside.35
Yet, some evidence suggests that it was. According to Donald Shanor, who studied
the stations in 1968, gossip about the CIA's ties to the Radios began as soon as
the stations started operations.3 Presumably, journalists were among those who
heard the rumors but failed to investigate them. Mickelson contends that
journalists often knew the truth but "kept their lips and typewriters sealed."37
Paper collections and other available sources of information, however, establish
little beyond the fact that some journalists outside the stations were familiar
with the Radios, knew their board members, and occasionally corresponded with
Radio insiders.
Anne McCormick, for example, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York
Times well-known for her interviews with world leaders, maintained
correspondence with John Foster Dulles during his tenure as Secretary of State.
Dulles's brother, Allen, was the first president of the Free Europe committee
and director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961. In addition to Dulles, McCormick was
acquainted with and was an occasional luncheon companion of Chamberlin's.? Had
she pressed either of these sources, she might have been able to break the story
of RFE's involvement with the CIA in the 1950s. There is no question that she
knew about the stations because her visit to the RFE offices in 1953 was
recorded in a RFE internal memorandum.39
McCormick's connections to politicians and Radio insiders should have made
obtaining information about the stations both possible and relatively easy. Yet,
she was not the only journalist with such connections.40 Joseph Alsop, one of
the nation's leading columnists in the 1950s, was also well connected and
familiar with the stations. He was invited by a Crusade for Freedom staffer in
1952 to describe for "millions of unwilling prisoners of Communist aggression"
the truth about life in the United States. Alsop politely declined, claiming
that his previous commitments prevented him from accepting the offer.41 On the
other hand, why did Alsop not investigate the Crusade or the Radios more
closely? RFE had been broadcasting for three years when Alsop received his
invitation. As time passed, journalists like him were apt to become more aware
of the stations and, no doubt, the intelligence community's involvement with
them.
Established media got the kick in the pants they needed to start investigating
organizations connected to the CIA after a left-wing, San Francisco-based,
alternative publication called Ramparts broke a story linking the agency with
the National Student Association (NSA).42 A young Ramparts reporter, Sol Stern,
began investigating the NSA after receiving a tip from a college student. In
retrospect, Stern said, "The fact that the established press did not break this
story shows just how complacent and compliant it was.""
Stem said that reporters at Ramparts, unlike those at the New York Times and
Washington Post, did not work on the assumption that government would provide
information. This difference, he claimed, made Ramparts somewhat of a fringe
publication. Stern believed Ramparts would have published more adversarial
articles had it had more funding, but even considering the shoestring budget on
which it operated, it often printed investigative pieces that were more
editorially responsible than those of the mainstream media. Otherwise, Stern
wondered, "Why did the large media like the New York Times and the Washington
Post with their huge budgets not get this story?""
Stern's pursuit of the NSA story inspired subsequent articles about the CIA in
major print and broadcast media. The New York Times finally published several
stories exposing the CIA's involvement with various organizations, as well as
its methOds for channeling money through dummy operations such as the Hobby
Foundation based in Texas. The New York Times connected the CIA to RFE for the
first time, listing the station as a recipient of Hobby Foundation funds.as
Not long afterward, Ron Bonn at CBS News produced a one-hour television doy
entitled "In the Pay of the CIA: An American Dilemma" It aired March 13, 1967,
and discussed the CIA's relationships with various groups. Bonn's dy described
the link to RFE as the "strangest of all the CIA's penetrations.... [It was] a
project which in effect used you, the individual American, as cover."46
Ironically, Bonn's own lack of penetration might have inadvertently covered a
co-me;on between RFE and CBS. When his documentary was produced, Frank Stanton
was simultaneously CBS pres;t and chairman of the executive committee of the RFE
Fund, a position which, after the 1967 revelations, became uncomfortable for
him.4' Nearly thirty years after the documentary, Bonn said he could not recall
whether he knew at the time that Stanton held both positions. Had he known, he
said he would have classified any such relationship as a serious conflict of
interest, "particularly if . . . [Stanton] was getting clandestine government
money. . . it would have cast a shadow on his activity at CBS News."48
Suspicion about continued CIA involvement with the stations persisted even after
the agency officially withdrew its support. Evidence of suspicion emerged in
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings in the early 1970s as well as
in popular publications written about the CIA. Victor Marchetti and John Marks
published a book in 1974, casting doubt as to whether the agency ever really
ended its involvement with the Radios. They suggest that given the CIA's past
record, it is unlikely.49
The history of the media's involvement with the CIA-funded Radios invites many
questions. Why all the secrecy to begin with? The official answer was that the
CIA wanted the Communist nations to believe that the Radios were supported by
kind-hearted, freedomloving Americans. This pretense permitted the United States
to have a diplomatic back door where the Radios were concerned, but it is
unlikely that it ever fooled Soviet or East Bloc officials. They claim to have
known the score from the beginning and to have had spies working inside the
stations from time to time throughout the Cold War.50 Similarly, Soviet and East
Bloc audiences were not deluded. Although CIA officials claimed the secret
helped maintain credibility for RFE and RL among their listeners, this was at
best rationalization and at worst wishful thinking. Soviet media warned their
people often that the stations were operated by the imperialist CIA, so it is
unlikely that listeners were without at least some suspicion.51
The only people not in on the secret, it seems, were members of the American
public, especially those who contributed unknowingly to the Crusade. It is
important to point out, therefore, that all the secrecy created an ironic
situation in which CIA and Radio officials participated in the same undemocratic
practices that they claimed to be battling abroad. As a small cadre of in-theknow
officials, they skirted proper channels to form broadcast stations that operated
outside of government's official system. Sub rosa, they avoided potential
conflicts by stifling healthy debate, keeping Congress and the public in the
dark about the Radios. Had more members of Congress known the truth, they might
have limited funding or perhaps even closed down the stations. Mickelson
articulated his fear of this, no doubt shared by other insiders, when he
expressed a desire to avoid "selfserving interference" from Congress into the
Radios' affairs.
That the CIA and Radio executives wanted to keep their secret is not surprising.
History teaches that those with power, when left unmonitored, often wield it as
they see fit, even if it is at the expense of others. It is not a stretch,
therefore, to imagine how CIA and Radio officials willingly subverted democratic
processes to accomplish their goals. What should be troubling to a society
founded as a participatory democracy, however, is that the institution expected
to stand between the public and the awesome powers of government failed so
completely in its guardianship role.
Authors Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman have explained that such reporting
failures are often the means by which media elites help manage public opinion or
manufacture consent in the service of big business, the government, or the
military.53 Creating illusions for public consumption, Chomsky argues, is
necessary if those with power are to keep power.' It is not unusual, therefore,
to find media elites, all with an interest in maintaining the status quo,
willing to publish stories or remain collectively silent. Censorship and regular
propaganda campaigns, Chomsky and Herman point out, serve to control the
"premises of discourse" and keep the public's view "at serious odds with
reality."
According to the authors, censorship and propaganda result, in part, from the
internal selection processes within organizations. Media elites pick managers
who have internalized organizational, market, and governmental constraints.
These managers, in turn, pursue a line of conformity through their decisions,
judgments, and influence.56 At the level on which most reporters operate,
therefore, censorship is often self-imposed as employees are expected to adjust
their performances to managerial expectations and other workplace realities and
pressures. This "free" system, the authors state, can produce communication that
is more credible than officially censored material but just as effective as
propaganda.57
Chomsky and Herman's concepts of manufactured consent explain the news media's
failure to meaningfully cover the Radios or the Crusade for Freedom. The men who
sat on the stations' boards were media, business, and government elites
interested in maintaining the status quo in the face of a potential threat from
communism. They manipulated public perception through the Crusade for Freedom's
propaganda campaign. That campaign was not investigated or criticized by
journalists before the 1970s because the controlling influence of elites inside
the media companies, along with other organizational constraints, stifled
reporting contradictory to elite priorities. The result was a collective silence
which was totalitarian in nature.
In the long run, the media's collaboration with the CIA and the Radios in the
1950s and 1960s may have opened doors for similar relationships later. In
February 1996, CIA director John Deutch confirmed that the agency had never
entirely ruled out using media organizations and journalists for spy work.58 For
nineteen years, despite beliefs to the contrary, CIA-media relationships had
been permitted at the director's discretion under a 1977 CIA directive.59 Deutch
claimed, however, that he knew of only one or two instances when operatives
received permission to use journalists or media organizations as cover. Even if
one can believe the CIA director, the small numbers he tossed out simply
disguise bigger issues. That such cooperation may continue to take place means
that an already flagging public trust in the news media stands a chance of being
further eroded by journalists who might cross the line, putting news media
credibility, themselves, and other journalists in a bad light and even at risk
of physical harm. Such risks have always had ramifications both at home and
abroad. Cooperation between government and media spreads distrust beyond the
borders of the United States, where foreign governments often presume
correspondents are agents or spies for the CIA. This not only potentially
prevents American correspondents from gaining access they might otherwise have,
but also endangers the lives of correspondents overseas, whether they have
government affiliations or not
Some government officials and media critics continue to defend allowing
CIA-media cooperation, opposing any absolute rule to the contrary. Unforeseeable
circumstances involving issues of national security, they maintain, may best be
resolved with the assistance of journalists. The cost, they argue, of
implementing a policy forbidding such relationships may potentially be very
great.60 On the other hand, their opponents believe that the cost of using
journalists as intelligence agents, even if only occasionally, could be higher.
As Howard Kurtz, a reporter who covered media for the Washington Post in 1996,
pointed out, there can never be a time when journalists collaborate with
government. "If it happens just once, twice, or only in extraordinary
circumstances," he said, "a cloud falls on every journalist as heavily as if it
were common practice."61
Historical examples of CIA-media cooperation like the RFE and RL episode do not
provide a blueprint for solving all the questions we have or the conflicts that
arise over issues of government-press cooperation.
These examples do, however, provide valuable pieces of information and insight.
The Radios' experience shows that if journalists are co-opted by government, the
full ramifications and consequences of the penalties may not be fully realized
for decades.
News media members were and remain responsible for their decisions to
collaborate with the CIA, just as they are responsible for deciding to withhold
information from the public. They decide whether to cross the line and engage in
secret government work or to uphold journalistic principles by refusing
clandestine government offers. In making such decisions during the Cold War, the
news media fell short of being ideal guardians of the public interest. So long
as the window remains open to CIA-media links in the future, it will be
journalists who hamper or enhance that guardianship role.
On October 13, 1996, CBS's "60 Minutes" reported that the U.S. government spends
more than $100 million annually on TV Marti, the television equivalent of RFE
which broadcasts to Cuba. Correspondent Steve Kroft noted in his report that the
govemment's money is probably completely wasted because few, if any, people in
Cuba ever see the programs. The Cuban government heavily jams TV Marti signals.
Even if the broadcasts could get through, the programs air before dawn at three
o'clock in the morning when most people are sleeping.62
Not long before the "60 Minutes" program, an additional $7 million was spent
relocating TV Marti facilities to Miami. Kroft reported that government
officials such as David Burke, the chairman of the federal broadcasting board of
governors who oversees TV Marti, should have been notified but were never told.
Instead, the relocation was engineered behind the scenes with no opportunity for
public discussion. According to Kroft, when Burke found out about the move, he
wrote to members of Congress and people in the administration, including Leon
Panetta. He requested hearings about the money spent on TV Marti's move and the
possibility that hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted every year for its
operation. No one in government responded There were no hearings and no further
news stories. TV Marti officials, like RFE and RL officials before them, simply
presume they have a right to withhold information and deceive the public. It is
a presumption which so far remains largely unchallenged by news media.
[Footnote]
NOTES
[Footnote]
1. Sig Mickelson, America's Other Voice (New York: Praeger, 1983), 4-10.
2. Donald Shanor, The New Voice of Radio Free Europe (An unpublished journalism
research memorandum, New York: Columbia University, 1968), 207.
3. E.W. Kenworthy, "Hobby Foundation of Houston Affirms C.IA. Tie," New York
Times, 21 Feb. 1967,32. 4. Mickelson, America's Other Voice, 125. 5. Sig
Mickelson, telephone interview with author, 2 Aug. 1996. 6. Mickelson, America's
Other Voice, 20, 36. 7. The same methods used by the Crusade for Freedom, when
targeting Communists, were generally known as "psychological warfare.'
[Footnote]
8. For informaton and details on the Crusade for Freedom see the Crusade for
Freedom Newsletters in the Charles Taft paper collection, Library of Congress,
Washington, D.C. Boxes 153, 156, hereafter Taft collection; and Mickelson s
discussion of the Crusade in America's Other Voice, 51-58. 9. Mickelson,
America's Other Voice, 55. 10. See Crusade for Freedom Newsletter July 1955 Taft
collection, Box 156, folder Foreign Affairs: Geographic file, Europe: National
Committee for Free Europe, Inc. I1. Ibid. 12. Ibid.
[Footnote]
13. Eighteen papers that published articles about Eisenhower's support for the
Crusade or articles and advertisements supportive of the Crusade between
February 7-10, 1955, include the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Boston Globe,
Chicago Tribune, Jackson, Miss., Clarion-Ledger, Des Moines Register, Houston
Post, Indianapolis Star Los Angeles Times, Louisville-Courier Journal Milwaukee
Journal,Minneapolis Morning Tribune, New York Herald Tribune, New York Times,
Charleston News and Courier, Portland Oregonian, San Francisco Chronicle, San
Francisco Examiner, and Washington Post Six papers that had no coverage of the
Crusade on the specified days include the Christian Science Monitor, Charlotte
Observer, New Orleans Times Picayune, Wall Street Journal, and Pitsburgh
Courier. Regarding Eisenhower's support for the Crusade he was one of its
founders, as well as a member of the National Committee for a Free Europe. He
held occasional fund raisers for the Crusade at the White House, which were
attended by businessmen, but few people in media.
14. See, for example, "How They Hear the Truth behind the Iron Curtain," Boston
Globe, 8 Feb. 1955, 3, or the same advertisement in the San Francisco Chronicle,
8 Feb. 1955, 2.
15. After IS years, the Crusade brought in close to $50 million. The cost of
implementing and sustaining the Crusade's campaign was $20 million, leaving only
$30 million leavin only $30 million of total support for the Radios. This was
just a fraction of what they needed to operate. See Mickelson, America 's Other
Voice, 58.
16. New York Times "President Appeals For Satellite People," 8 Feb. 1955, 1 and
6. Besides Eisenhower, the article quotes General Walter Bedell Smith, the
former Under Secretary of State, and Henry Ford II. Their comments were made for
a fund-raiser, which was broadcast over closed-circuit television from ABC's
studios in New York to audiences in thirty-three cities.
17. San Francisco Examiner, "California's 800 Legion Posts to Back Fund Drive
for Radio Free Europe," 7 Feb. 1955, p. 28.
[Footnote]
18. Clarion-Ledger, "Governor Proclaims Freedom Week Here," 8 Feb. 1955,13.
19. Crusade for Freedom Newsletter, July 1955,Taft collection, Box 156 folder
Foreign Affairs: Geographic file Europe: National Committee for Free Europe,
Inc. Broadcast media supported the Crusade as well. The Newsletter boasted that
in 1955 "substantially more than 500 Crusade messages were [broadcast] by CBS,
NBC, ABC, MBS and Dumont networks." While the Crusade's numbers might not be
correct, it seems certain that the campaign did receive support from radio and
television broadcasters. Well-known figures in broadcasting, such as Ed Sullivan
and Edward R. Murrow, were used in commercials promoting the Crusade's efforts.
The Newsletter also reported that "twenty-six national consumer magazines with
circulations in excess of 46 million readers carried Crusade articles,
editorials or special mentions; as did 52 national organization magazines with
14 million readers, and trade magazines reaching an additional two million."
20. See Donald Crewdson, "The CIA's 3-Decade Effort To Mold the World's Views,"
New York Times, 25 Dec. 1977, 1; "Worldwide
[Footnote]
Propaganda Network Built by the CIA," 26 Dec. 1977, 1- "CIA Established Many
Links to Journalists in U.S. and Abroad," 27 Dec. 1977, 1; "Varying Ties to the
CIA Confirmed in Inquiry," 27 Dec. 1977, 41; "A Young Reporter's Decision to
Join CIA Led to Strain Anger and Regret" 27 Dec. 1977,41. Also see "CIA and the
Press," Editor & Publisher, 17 Sept.1977, 6; "Shaping Tomorrow's CIA," Time, 6
Feb. 1978, 15; Stuart Loory, "The CIA's Use of the Press: A Mighty Wurlitzer,"
Columbia Journalism Review, Sept./Oct. 1974, 819; "The CIA Connection,"Newsweek
10 Dec. 1973, 18; "CBS-CIA Connection Confirmed by Salant," Broadcasting, 30 May
1977, 22. For government investigations see Final Report of the Select Committee
to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, United
States Senate, 94 Cong., 2 session S. Doc. 94-755, 1976, 3 vols. (informally
known as the Church Committee). Also see House Select Committee on Intelligence
Report (Pike Committee Report),19 Jan. 1976. This report was unpublished but was
leaked to the press and is cited in Bernardo Carvalho, "The CIA and the Press,"
Freedom of Information Center Report 382, December 1977. For government
investigations specifically into RFE and RL, see Hearing before the Committee on
Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 92 Cong., S. 18 and S. 1936, "Public
Financing of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty," 24 May 1971; Hearings before
the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 92 Cong., S3645,
"Funding of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty," 6 and 7 June 1972.
21. Outside of Luce's empire, other publishers who formed influential
associations with the stations include William Lindsay
[Footnote]
White, publisher of the family-owned Emporia, Kan., Gazette from 1944 to 1973.
He was elected treasurer of RL and remained a trustee until his death in 1973.
Edwin Palmer Hoyt, publisher of the Portland Oregonian, and William Wesley
Waymack a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial writer who became editor of the Des
Moines Register and Tribune, lent their names and sometimes their resources to
RFE. A few others who figured prominently as board members and founding members
of the stations include DeWitt Wallace, the publisher of Reader's Digest, Mark
Ethridge, publisher of the Louisville Courier Journal; Hamilton Fish Armstrong,
editor of Foreign Affairs, and Frank Stanton of CBS News.
22. Henry R. Luce "Fund Raising Takes To Air,"Life 22 Feb. 1954, 37. Also See
Crusade for Freedom Newsletter, February 1954, Taft collection, Boxes 153-156.
23. Alan Grover, president of Time, for example, was an original organizer of
Radio Liberty. Roy Larsen, a vice president of Time, Inc., was a member of the
board of directors for the Radio Free Europe Fund. For complete lists of RFE and
RL board members, see the Board for International Broadcasting annual reports.
24. Blanche Wiesen Cook, "First Comes the Lie: C.D. Jackson and Political
Warfare," Radical History review 31 (1984): 43. 25. Ibid., 45 26. Ibid., 44 27.
Ibid., 45
[Footnote]
28. "The President's Committee on International Information Activities: Report
to the President," 30 June 1953. U.S. President's Committee on International
Information Activities: the Jackson Committee, Box 14, 39-40, 4143, Dwight D.
Eisenhower Library, Abilene, Kan.
29. Speech by C.D. Jackson before the Annual A.NA. Meeting, September 1951. C.D.
Jackson Papers: 1931-1967, Box 82, 5, Dwight D. Eisenhower Library. Also see
Shawn J. Parry-Giles, "The Eisenhower Administration's Conceptualization of the
USIA: The
[Footnote]
Development of Overt and Covert Propaganda Strategies," Presidential Studies
Quarterly 24 (Spring 1994): 267.
30. William Chamberlin, personal diaries, reel 1 of 4: 1949-1956, Providence
College Library. See entry on 12 Jan. 1951. 31. Ibid.,1 Oct. 1952
32. Mickelson,America's Other Voice, 121. 33. Gene Mater, telephone interview
with author, 20 July 1996. Mater worked for the San Bernadino Sun Telegram,
Newark StarLedger and New York World Telegram before becoming RFE's head of news
and information from 1959 to 1965. Ironically, he was thought of as a "news
purist."
34. Leland Stowe for example, was a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who became
head of RFE's News and Information department before Mater. He was responsible
for hiring other excellent reporters for the Radios, such as Russell Hill, of
the New York Herald Tribune; Allan Dreyfuss of ABC and Reuters in Europe
Frederick B. Opper, of ABC; Talbot Hood, of the United Press in London; and John
Elliott, of the New York Herald Tribune. For information specifically on Stowe's
activities at RFE, see America's Other Voice 96, and the Leland Stowe papers,
1925-1969, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Box 10, Folders 5 and 6. 35.
Shanor, The New Voice of Radio Free Europe, 210. 36. Ibid.
[Footnote]
37. Mickelson, America's Other Voice, 125. 38. For letters from Anne McCormick
to John Foster Dulles and others connected to RFE and RL, see the Anne O'Hare
McCormick papers, 1931-1954, New York Public Library, Rare Books and Manuscripts
Division, Boxes 6,7,10. Descriptions of McCormick's associations with Chamberlin
can be found in Chamberlin's diaries; for example, see 6 Nov. 1940, 2 Oct 1941,
and 6 April 1946., 19491956.
39. See Leland Stowe to Whitney Shepardson, "RFE's News and Information Service:
Facts About Its Specialized Coverage and Products in Relation to Their Costs,"
29 Dec. 1953, Leland Stowe papers, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Box
10, folder 5.
40. A complete list of reporters who corresponded with RFE executives would be
very long but would include Walter Graebner, Joseph Alsop, Daniel Longwell,
Robert Lee Sherrod, Claude Gemade Bowers, Arthur Sweetser, Nicolas Roosevelt,
Brant Irving, and Harry Barnard.
41. Rion Bercovici to Joseph Alsop, 28 Nov. 1952, Joseph and Stewart Alsop
papers, Library of Congress, Box 8. Also see Joseph Alsop to Bercovici,10 Dec.
1952, Box 8. 42. Mickelson,America's Other Voice, 125. 43. Sol Stem, telephone
interview with author, 20 July 1996. 44. Ibid.
[Footnote]
45. Sol Stern, "NSA and the CIA,"Ramparts, 5 March 1967. The article exposing
the link between the NSA and the CIA did not appear until March 1967. The New
York Times was able to break the story first on February 14, before Ramparts,
most probably because Ramparts editors advertised their new issue in a full-page
Times ad. Additionally, Ramp arts editors mailed out advanced copies of their
publication which Times editors very likely received.
46. "In the Pay of the CIA, An American Dilemma" CBS News, 13 March 1967, CBS
Archives, New York City. 47. Mickelson, America's Other Voice, 124. 48. Ron
Bonn, telephone interview with author,16 April 1996. 49. Victor Marchetti and
John Marks, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1974), 208.
50. See A. Panfilov, Broadcasting Pirates: Or Abuse of the Microphone (Moscow:
Progress Publishers, 1981). 51. Ibid.
[Footnote]
52. Mickelson, America's Other Voice, 222. 53. See Edward S. Herman and Noam
Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (New
York: Pantheon Books, 1988), xi.
54. See Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic
Societies (Boston, Mass.: South End Press, 1989), 19. Chomsky explains why
illusions are necessary in a democracy: "In the democratic system, the necessary
illusions cannot be imposed by force. Rather, they must be instilled in the
public mind by more subtle means. A totalitarian state can be satisfied with
lesser degrees of allegiance to required truths. It is sufficient that people
obey, what they think is secondary concern. But in a democratic political order,
there is always the danger that independent thought might be translated into
political action, so it is important to eliminate the threat at its root. Debate
cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda,
it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained
within proper boundaries.
[Footnote]
What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as
it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it
should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish
these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the
belief that freedom reigns" (48).
[Footnote]
55. Herman and chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, xi
56. Ibid., iix
57. Ibid., xiv
58. Associated Press. Online wire report. CompuServe Information Services. 18
April, 1996.
56. Ibid Also see devra Gersh Hermendex, Posing as
[Footnote]
Jounalists"Editor & Publisher, 2 Mar. 6. 60. "Journalists As Spies," "Reliable
Sources" transcript, Cable News Network, 25 Feb. 1996, Internet (/
TRANSCRIPTS/rs.html) 25 March 1996. During an el discussion about this issue,
Richard Haass, the director of National Security Programs for the Council on
Foreign Relations, opposed establishing rules regulating govemment/media
relationships. 61. Ibid. Kurtz was also a panelist. 62. "60 Minutes," 13 Oct.
1996, CBS Archives.
[Author Affiliation]
Stacey Cone is a first-year doctoral student in journalism and mass
communications at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.