The 1972 Presidential Election - Book Report/Review Example

Crouse’s Boys on the Bus II. Introduction This is a report on Timothy Crouse’s book “The Boys on the Bus” published in 1973. Crouse was then a young reporter for the music magazine Rolling Stones who tagged along with veteran journalist Hunter S. Thompson to cover the 1972 Presidential election contested between then-President Richard Nixon and Democratic Party candidate George McGovern. Using the presidential campaign as a backdrop, Crouse’s focus was actually not on the two Presidential candidates but on the mostly male journalists who covered the campaign. Over a four-month period that began with the New Hampshire Primary on the 1st of June to the eve of the elections in November 1972, Crouse assembled his observations into a series of articles that became the basis for the book. The book became an instant best-seller. Surprisingly, it was the only book that Crouse wrote. Soon after, he dabbled in freelance writing, spending some time as Esquire’s Washington correspondent, before going into his real love: writing for the theater. The son of well-known Broadway producer Russell Crouse, whose credits include “Sound of Music”, “Life with Father”, and “Call Me Madam”, and the brother of respected actress Lindsay Crouse, Timothy left journalism in the 1980s and ventured into playwriting. The captivating narrative of the book highlights Crouse’s storytelling talent. Combining real-life drama with humor, he painted an amusing portrait of the main characters – the journalists, media supporters, and the candidates – on the campaign bus. The bus was a mere metaphor for the closed, cozy, and clubby group of journalists on the campaign trail, but it projects a precise picture of the riotous, fun, and chaotic feel of a school bus packed with a bunch of immature, eccentric, and hyperactive kids. III. Synopsis Crouse’s book sheds a theatrical light on the dramatic aspects of U.S. history in the making. By using as backdrops for his story-telling Nixon’s desperate re-election drive until his political blunder at Watergate, and McGovern’s futile campaign to put up a worthy challenge, Crouse chronicles the minds and characters of the people who tell the stories to America and the whole world. At the same time, he also presents an image of America at a crossroads, caught in the maelstrom of civil unrest at home, a bloody war in Vietnam, and a cold war with Communist Russia. The journalists that covered the elections moved around like wolves, giving rise to the term pack journalism that marks much of the craft’s contemporary practice, and it was their behavior to stay within that pack and rise above it that makes for an interesting read. In the process, survival and domination within the pack do not depend on stating facts as one sees them, as “true” journalism must present to an information-hungry public, but rather it depends on the view that articles be consistent with what others in the pack are writing. Crouse cites several instances of editors questioning why facts in other newspapers’ stories were not covered by a journalist, or why one’s analysis of the same news is different and inconsistent. Journalists “fed off the same pool report, the same daily handout, the same speech by the candidate; the whole pack was isolated in the same mobile village. After a while, they began to believe the same rumors, subscribe to the same theories, and write the same stories (p. 8).” Packs have replaced facts, and who is the victim? Truth, of course. The book gave the alarming impression that history, rather than the result of different viewpoints and perceptions, becomes what a cabal of eyewitnesses is pressured to report. It is no surprise therefore that Crouse soon left journalism to focus on theater, which may have been for him a more fulfilling, creative, and perhaps more sincere pursuit. IV. Main Philosophical Ideas The book appealed to a very wide audience, becoming a best-seller after its release, because it gave an in-the-trenches insight on the newsmakers (Presidential candidates), the makers of the news (journalists), and the exercise of raw power by these two forces that keep our democracy throbbing. On one hand are the “apparently central” characters – Nixon and McGovern – disputing a contest for power; on the other hand are the book’s “real central” characters – the journalists and media people – who were engaged in a parallel contest for the power to break the news and shape the thinking of a worldwide audience. All these power struggles attained Russian doll proportions, as journalistic games to get the scoop took place within the larger contest between two national candidates, the winner earning the right to lead America in a world obsessed with the notions of power and survival. Crouse’s account of the battle between CBS and Gannett (pp. 152-153) to broadcast the scoop on Stevenson’s political endorsement, and his picture among others of Clymer’s growing self-importance (p. 341), reflects the primal emotional energy burning not only inside the “bus” among the journalists but with their editors, paper owners, and the public. For political and behavioral scientists, the book offers an inside look into how campaign machines work and how mobs behave. Journalists can certainly learn from the way today’s respected luminaries were pictured then by Crouse as akin to rock stars, complete with quirky and whimsical bitchiness. And Joe Q. Public can certainly be entertained in knowing how our news gets written, with a bonus glimpse of the inner workings of how democracy works and how leaders get elected. I see one consistent message through it all: the recording and telling of our national history is determined by personalities who write about events as they take place. As men and women who write history, then, journalists have a serious role to play in the world. As Crouse argued (p. 208), nobody thirty years after the events remembers the news articles of the time and the people who wrote them, but the public perception of those events of long ago have undeniably shaped public opinion, perhaps even the outcome of the election, and therefore the course of history. V. Professional Development Two other points he argued in what I would think was in an impressive way. First was the practice of “group journalism” at Time, where “correspondents filed about 750,000 words every week, and then the editors in the New York office took over”, cutting down “700,000 of those words” and then rewriting “about 85 percent of the remaining copy” (p. 141). This continues to this day and makes us pause before believing what we read. The second was the inconsistent behavior of political pack journalists. They lose their individuality when they should not; and then they don’t cooperate among themselves when they should (p. 243-244). When journalists such as those in the White House Press Corps boast noisily of independence, objectivity, and individuality, this is but a defensive cover for their sheepishness and fear, a huge chink in their professional armor that savvy political creatures such as Presidents and their staffs have learned to exploit, putting journalists on the defensive with their denials and spin. To rub salt into the wound, Crouse wrote that the toughest articles were those by the women journalists who were not on the bus (p. 223). Crouse’s words are inspiring to would-be journalists like me. A true journalist should not be afraid to tell the news as it is and to act differently from the pack. One must be courageous and persistent in finding and reporting the truth, not because it will bring fame or because it is what others are writing about, but because people have the right to know the events that will shape the course of their lives and the future of the world. Truth is the basis of trust; trust is the foundation of credibility; and credibility is the key to fame. The recent downfall of high-profile journalists who plagiarized and sensationalized their way to fame shows that this rule is not so easy to follow. The fact that even veteran journalists like Rather (whom Crouse profiled in the book) proves that one mustn’t stop perfecting the craft. And lastly, Crouse showed that journalists may be interesting news in themselves, but they are just the instruments that “world events” use to get to the public. We are not the events ourselves, so we need to guard against the human tendency to grab the limelight. We are just the medium, and not the message; and thus all journalists must act. VI. Conclusion In writing about the journalists he accompanied on the campaign bus, Crouse explored the closed and clubby world of political journalists. While describing the reporters, he gave us an entertaining look into the events that shaped history and the way these events were reported. Knowing the men who make the news teaches us the kind of news we get. We are talking not only of changes in governments and how elected governments exercise politics. Perhaps more important is being able to know the persons who affect the manner by which truths are reported and known. Their claims of objectivity notwithstanding, Crouse showed that every journalist writing the news leaves a part of his or her soul in the article. Both journalists and readers must beware that this is the way it is. For a truly objective look at events as they unfold, it falls on readers to know who are dishing out the news, much as they would like to know the doctor who writes out their prescriptions. This is neither rocket science nor deep psychology, but merely a call to journalists and their readers. Journalism is a serious profession and must never be taken lightly. Likewise, readers are enjoined to be more critical and discerning towards journalists and the news. This is equally a challenge for both. Taking this on is not easy, but by making both sides aware, Crouse made us accept that we need this sacrifice for our democracy to survive and flourish. Reference List Crouse, T. (1973 [1984]). The boys on the bus. New York: Ballantine. Read More