Abstract
When the casual news consumer hears the name Edward R. Murrow, one of two ideas is likely to pop into his or her head: Murrow’s coverage of World War II from Europe or his reporting that ended the political career of Sen. Joe McCarthy.
He or she might not know that Murrow spent the final three years of his professional life as the director of the U.S. Information Agency and helped to promote American and democratic ideals around the world.
Murrow’s tenure at the United States Information Agency (USIA) essentially mirrored the presidency of John F. Kennedy; he began at the USIA in 1961 and retired in early 1964, a few weeks after Lyndon B. Johnson succeeded Kennedy. Riddled with cancer, Murrow was dead one year later.
Gregory Tomlin’s book attempts to capture what motivated Murrow to ditch CBS and television news in favor of a position with less prestige, far less income, and, perhaps, more headaches. Unfortunately, this book too often is a reflection on what President Kennedy and his various underlings did, and less detailed about Murrow’s actions, successes, and failures.
This is, in other words, a valuable political science work on the Kennedy administration; it is not the richest vein to tap for people interested in learning more about Murrow.
Two critical sentences, found in the final chapter, suggest Tomlin’s evaluation of Murrow’s time at the USIA. He writes, Despite the accolades and the measurable achievements, Murrow did not succeed in fully revamping the agency. The key obstacles remained parochial members of Congress who continued to cut the agency’s budget; substandard staff members; and officials from the State and Defense Departments who increasingly aired messages that were not concordant with the agency’s broadcasts, particularly to South Vietnam.
Had Tomlin spent more time analyzing Murrow’s words and actions relating to these ideas, his book would have been primarily about the legendary broadcaster and secondarily about a president who, like Murrow, was dead far sooner than he should have been.
Tomlin makes clear that Murrow began and ended his term at the USIA believing that telling the truth was paramount, regardless of the circumstances. Considering that he served as USIA director during a period in which the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was red hot and in which Americans’ attitudes toward civil rights often weren’t positive, Murrow faced consistent criticism, especially from Congress, for his tell-the-truth-no-matter-what philosophy. Although there is no direct linkage between an at times hostile Congress and the budget cuts the USIA endured under Murrow’s leadership, it is not unrealistic to think that Murrow might have ruffled enough feathers to make him and the USIA a lightning rod.
One of the more intriguing threads in this book is the relationship between Murrow and Kennedy. Tomlin acknowledges that understanding their relationship “remains somewhat difficult” because no personal correspondence between them has been found. Tomlin’s work suggests the two men admired each other but that neither attempted to develop a friendship. More importantly, Tomlin details Murrow’s occasional frustration at Kennedy for being too cautious in his actions; the reader could easily see comparisons to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and its frustration that Barack Obama never became the loud, liberal voice many of them expected him to be.
Tomlin argues that even though Murrow was never fully comfortable in Washington and was at times prickly about the President’s decisions, he refused to abandon the President or his commitment to the people who worked under him at the USIA. Tomlin adds that Murrow stepped aside in 1964 solely because his health was deteriorating to the point where his once fifteen-hour-a-day efforts had been reduced to almost nothing; he was dying of cancer and couldn’t provide the leadership the position demanded.
Murrow’s Cold War is well researched and well written. You should consider reading it. But I don’t think it evaluates Murrow to a degree necessary for me to urge you to consider it for a course in, say, political media or journalism history.