Full text of "Report on blacklisting: II. Radio-television"

See other formats

$1.25

reporton BLACKLISTING

II • Radio -Television

JOHN COGLEY

THE FUND FOR THE REPUBLIC, INC.

report on BLACKLISTING

II • Radio - Television

JOHN COGLEY

THE FUND FOR THE REPUBLIC, INC.

CONTENTS

Acknowledgment v

Foreword vii

Counterattack and Red Channels 1

The First Cases 22

Blacklisting: An Institution 49

Newsmen and Commentators 7 1

"Clearance" 89

The Syracuse Crusade 1 00

"Take Their Word" 110

Security on Madison Avenue 115

"Clearance" at CBS 122

Aware, Inc. 129

The Theatrical Unions 1 43

Some Interviews 163

Blacklisting Experiences 173

Industry Viewpoints 192

Blacklisting and Broadway 210

Appendix 218

Anti-Communism and Employment Policies

in Radio and Television 221

by MARIE JAHODA

Research Center for Human Relations
New York University

Index 282

iii

Acknowledgment

THIS REPORT is based on the findings of a staff of researchers and
reporters — Edward Engberg, Harriet Davis, Gwendolyn Boulkind,
Saul Blackman, Margaret Bushong and William Pfaff.

The study conducted by Dr. Marie Jahoda of the Research Cen-
ter for Human Relations, New York University, was wholly
independent.

I am indebted to the Fund for the Republic, which sponsored
the study, and to all who supplied the material on which the report
is based. This latter group includes not only the research staff but
some two hundred persons in the radio-television industry who gave
freely of their time for lengthy interviews. Special thanks are due
to my assistant Michael Harrington, who gave invaluable help in
organizing the mass of material collected, and to James Greene,
the project secretary.

The conclusions found in these pages are mine alone. They do
not necessarily reflect the judgments of any other person.

JOHN COGLEY

Foreword

MOST AMERICANS ARE CONVINCED that loyalty-security investiga-
tions of people working for the government in sensitive positions
or seeking key federal jobs are necessary to protect the government
from the infiltration of persons who might try to destroy it. But
when loyalty tests are applied by private groups to people in private
industries — and people are barred from jobs because they are
"controversial" — many citizens become alarmed.

The present report (with its companion volume dealing with the
motion picture industry) embodies the results of a study initiated
by The Fund for the Republic in September, 1954, when many
Americans had become disturbed by the revelation of blacklisting
practices in the radio, television, and motion picture industries.

At the time this study was launched, such blacklisting was a
subject of vigorous public controversy, involving civil liberties
issues of a serious kind. It raised questions of freedom of thought
and speech, of due process, of the protection of the individual
against group pressures and of the community against the disloyalty
of the individual. It was a controversy in which all participants
commonly spoke in the name of the Constitution and civil liberty,
but in violently conflicting terms.

Those who advocated blacklisting practices did so on the ground
that Communist and pro-Communist infiltration into the entertain-
ment industries represented a serious peril to the American system
of law and governance, and therefore to the freedoms which it
enshrines. The peril might be direct, through giving Communists

vii

access to mass media into which they could introduce subversive
propaganda, or which they might even sabotage given the proper
circumstances. It might be only indirect, permitting Communist
sympathizers to enjoy popular esteem, earning incomes which
would help support Communist causes, operating their own black-
lists against anti-Communists and promoting the interests of an
international conspiracy directed toward the destruction of all
liberties. In any case, it was contended, the extirpation from the
entertainment industries of proven members of the Communist
conspiracy and of all who were considered to have lent it their
support or had been indifferent to its dangers (and remained im-
penitent) was essential as a protection to American institutions.

Opponents of blacklisting contended that such a policy could
only subvert the rights and liberties it sought to protect. Some held
that it violated the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech
and thought, since it destroyed an individual's livelihood on the
sole ground of his political beliefs. This raised the issue whether
a sympathy with Communism could properly be regarded as a
"political belief" or must be taken as proof of complicity in a
criminal conspiracy, even though no criminal charge could be
brought. Beyond that, many who accepted the view that a con-
vinced Communist should be barred from the cameras and micro-
phones were disturbed by the methods being used to achieve this
result. It was contended that blacklisting resulted in the ruin of
many entirely loyal individuals without formal charges, hearings or
other safeguards of due process, often on flimsy or mistaken charges
and at the dictates of self-appointed censors or pressure groups.

Several things were apparent in this controversy. The major
arguments simply did not meet. The facts around which the argu-
ments raged were largely unknown. In these issues, plainly of
critical importance to all those interested in the preservation of
civil liberty, the information necessary to arriving at valid conclu-
sions was largely unavailable. It was not even clear whether a

blacklisting system actually existed in the motion picture, radio and
TV industries. If it existed, it was not known on what principles
it worked, who controlled it, how accurate were the criteria it
applied in screening Communists and pro-Communists out of the
industries, what were the motives which might have contributed to
its growth. Beyond the somewhat rough-and-ready disclosures of
the various investigating committees, there was little useful data on
the nature and extent of Communist influence in the industries;
on the effect, if any, which it had exerted on the output; on the
extent to which the Communists themselves had engaged in black-
listing practices, or on numerous other facts essential to formu-
lating any answers for the issues of civil liberties here involved.
The subject was being debated, in short, in a vacuum.

The Fund for the Republic was established as an educational
undertaking in the field of civil liberties in the United States. It
seemed to its Directors that here were problems of immediate con-
cern and that the Fund could render a useful service toward their
solution by ascertaining the facts involved. It asked John Cogley,
then Executive Editor of The Commonweal, to study and report
upon the situation as a whole. This he has done. Mr. Cogley and
his associates have interviewed — so far as they found it possible
to do so — every important interest concerned. These include ex-
ecutives of the motion picture industry and the radio and TV
chains, the advertising agencies, leading advertisers, the theatrical
unions, leaders of anti-Communist organizations and others promi-
nent in "listing" or "clearing" individuals, and many producers,
directors, actors, writers, reporters, news commentators and agency
men.

From the first it was recognized that this was a highly complex
question, and Mr. Cogley and his associates have been scrupulous
in trying to present all significant points of view. He was given a
free hand in the organization of the study and presentation of the
facts. While he accepts responsibility for this report as its director

and author, the Board of The Fund for the Republic wishes to
state its full confidence in the calm deliberation which he has given
to its preparation. We believe he has done a thorough job in a
very difficult field.

It was recognized that many in the industries are aware of the
difficulties raised by blacklisting and have been wrestling earnestly
with them. Mr. Cogley has tried to give a detailed picture of a
situation as it exists. He has brought in no indictments, and has
offered no recommendations. The Board of the Fund for the
Republic offers none, believing that progress in resolving the con-
flicts of interest, viewpoint, and principle involved must and will
come hi the first instance from the industries affected. But even
this progress must ultimately turn upon public knowledge and
understanding of the actual situation and its problems. This report
seeks only to supply the data on which such knowledge and under-
standing may be established.

FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
THE FUND FOR THE REPUBLIC:
By Paul G. Hoffman, Chairman

Counterattack
and Red Channels

COUNTERATTACK is a weekly, four-page newsletter published by
the American Business Consultants in New York. It was founded
in 1 947 as Counterattack, the Newsletter of Facts on Communism.

Subscribers to Counterattack ($24 yearly) are entitled to the
Special Reports which the newsletter publishes irregularly. The
most famous of these reports was made available to the public at
one dollar a copy and bore the name Red Channels, The Report of
Communist Influence in Radio and Television.

Red Channels provided a list of 151 persons in the radio-tele-
vision industry who, the editors claimed, were linked, either hi the
past or present, with a variety of "Communist causes." The "links"
were cited in each case. They included organizations identified as
subversive by the Attorney General, the House Committee on Un-
American Activities, the California Un-American Activities Com-
mittee and other official and private sources. Among the private
sources were the authors of Red Channels themselves.

At the beginning of the volume there is a disclaimer pointing
out that the listed activities or associations may well have been
innocent of subversive intent; Red Channels is only reporting them.
This statement made it virtually impossible for the listed people to
obtain legal satisfaction for damages suffered as a result of the
listing. The accuracy of some Red Channels sources has been suc-
cessfully challenged, many of those named in its pages have since

been "cleared," and the volume itself has been superseded by a
number of newer listings. But its publication in June, 1950,
marked the formal beginning of blacklisting in the radio-tv industry.

The booklet soon became known as "the Bible of Madison
Avenue" (center of the radio-tv industry in New York). It was
consulted by network executives, advertising agencies, radio-tv
packagers and sponsors. Its underlying thesis — that Communists
were "infiltrating" the radio-tv field and should be removed —
became something of a doctrine in the industry.

The editors of Counterattack never held that everyone listed in
Red Channels was actually an "infiltrator," nor did they claim that
everyone listed in the publication was a Communist. But they did
believe that those whose names appeared on the list had some ex-
plaining to do and should be called on to prove their anti-commu-
nism by word and deed or be kept out of the industry. The industry,
by and large, accepted the proposition. Counterattack's standards
of what constituted "infiltration," "communistic associations," and
grounds for suspicion were almost universally adopted up and
down Madison Avenue. There have been numberless disagree-
ments within the industry as to whether this or that individual
actually was "infiltrating," had been associated in any meaningful
sense with the Communist conspiracy, or was indeed reasonably
suspect. But Red Channels was remarkably successful in getting
the industry to accept Counterattack's standards.

Most significant, the acceptance of Red Channels meant that the
radio-tv industry officially adopted the political point-of-view
espoused by Counterattack. Very few in the industry seemed to give
their sincere support to Counterattack's political evaluations, yet
almost the entire industry, as far as employment practices went,
acted on them. The standards of employability were Counterat-
tack's; the measure of patriotism was Counterattack's; "pro-Com-
munist" and "anti-Communist" opinions, acts and associations, in
the last analysis, were judged as Counterattack judges them.

Since the American Business Consultants is a private organiza-
tion, Counterattack's opinions represent no more than the opinions
of its editors. In the past (according to the newsletter itself), the
editors have been consulted by Congressional committees because
of their special knowledge of communism. But they have often
been highly critical of the Government's anti-Communist efforts.
The original prospectus announcing Counterattack stated flatly
that ". . . the efforts of our government to combat Communist
activities have failed to eliminate the effectiveness of this 5th
column ..." Counterattack, therefore, was designed "to obtain,
file and index factual information on Communists, Communist
fronts and other subversive organizations."*

Counterattack, however, has not confined its attacks to sub-
versive organizations. A goodly portion of its energies has gone into
combatting those ideas, activities and groups which the editors feel
"help" the Communists. "Helping the Communists" is rarely in-
tentional; it is often rooted in political naivete. But on this basis

* The three founding editors had some experience in this field. They were
ex-FBI men who had collaborated first as researchers for an anti-Communist pub-
lication called Plain Talk (financed by millionaire Alfred Kohlberg and edited
by Isaac Don Levine), then as directors of a Washington, D. C. corporation
known as John Quincy Adams Associates. As John Quincy Adams Associates the
three ex-FBI men — Ken Bierly, now with Columbia pictures; Ted Kirkpatrick,
now with an Illinois business corporation; and John Keenan, still publisher of
Counterattack — collected and distributed information about communism upon
request. Their work was done mainly for clergymen, union leaders and persons
frequently approached by charitable and civic organizations who were anxious not
to support a hidden Communist cause.

John Quincy Adams Associates dissolved after a year when the organization
failed to win a permanent not-for-profit rating. The three partners, then, with the
financial support of some well-to-do anti-Communists, set up the American Busi-
ness Consultants in New York, in April, 1947. The new company had the dual
purpose of publishing a newsletter and promoting "scientific research technical
investigations." In addition to publishing Counterattack, the American Business
Consultants went on making special reports, like the John Quincy Adams Asso-
ciates, but with the difference that ABC charged fees (from $5 to five-figure sums)
while JQAA merely accepted voluntary contributions. Some work was done gratis
— "We're like a doctor," one of the Consultants once told a magazine writer.
"Doctors always have some charity patients."

Counterattack at one time or another has lashed out against prac-
tically every major newspaper in the City of New York and casti-
gated departments of the executive branch of the Government, both
Houses of the legislative branch, and a whole anagram set of private
organizations - NBC, CBS, the YWCA, the ACLU, among others.

During recent years book reviewers have lauded the literary style
of writers considered "subversive" by Counterattack; national
magazines have publicized dubious entertainers; newspapers have
announced the meetings of suspect organizations — these and
countless other incidents are occasions of "helping the Commu-
nists." Counterattack often seems to measure every movement and
event in American life by the simple standards of its "help"
criterion.

Evil acts of course only became more malicious when the crite-
rion is applied — thus racial discrimination or union racketeering is
worthy of censure not only by the tenets of ordinary morality but
also because they "help" Communist propagandists. But when the
measure is applied to acts good or indifferent in themselves,
Counterattack sometimes seems compelled to condemn activities
that many Americans feel are the normal manifestations of free
political debate. A petition to gain clemency for the Rosenbergs
or have the Supreme Court decide on the Constitutional issues in
the Hollywood Ten Case, a protest against real (or, as Counter-
attack usually says, "imagined") instances of censorship, a steady
concern for civil liberties, a study of blacklisting or of government
security measures, a protest against atomic warfare, against the
methods of a Senator McCarthy — these and a much wider cate-
gory of activities are worthy of solemn condemnation if in some
way they "help the Communists." In a 1955 issue of the newsletter,
for instance, readers were urged to write to President Eisenhower
and ask him for a "public and personal statement on the reports be-
ing circulated that he thoroughly enjoyed The Investigator'* now

* "The Investigator" is a phonograph record lampooning Senator McCarthy.

that its Communist authorship and Party-line inspiration is evident."
The President was thus asked to consider whether, when he thought
it over, he really enjoyed something which, if he enjoyed at all,
he enjoyed months before.

"Proof is available for every statement made in Counterattack"
the newsletter declared in an early issue. This claim is not as im-
pressive as it sounds since Counterattack's most startling "expo-
sures" have been reports of reports. It is as if one took journalistic
pride in the accuracy with which he copied even wrong numbers
from a telephone book. If, for instance, Actor T has been cited as
belonging to Organization P, which has been cited by the Cali-
fornia Tenney Committee as subversive, Counterattack does not
take a great chance when it states the fact. It sometimes happens
that Actor T actually did not belong to Organization P, or it some-
times happens that Organization P was not actually subversive in
any meaningful sense despite the Tenney Committee — but Count-
erattack has fulfilled its obligation, it feels, when it reports what
the Tenney Committee had to say about Organization P and
Actor T.

Of course, the newsletter's readers, not without reason, often
conclude, (a) that Actor T did belong to Organization P, (b) that
the organization was indeed subversive and (c) that Actor T is
likewise subversive — and, so concluding, are misled on one or all
three counts. But the burden for undoing the mischief caused by
Counterattack's report then falls on Actor T. It is his obligation to
prove that he did not belong to the organization, or that the organi-
tion was not subversive, or in any case that he was not consciously
involved in any of its subversion. Perhaps he can succeed in con-
vincing not only Counterattack's readers but his employers as well
that he is a patriot and always has been. But, withal, Counterattack
remains a model of journalistic accuracy — the newsletter has
"proof" for every statement made in its pages!

After nine months of crying out against Communist "infiltra-
tion," Counterattack, on January 16, 1948, attempted to identify
and enumerate the personnel in the threat. This is what it had to
say:

What is meant by a Communist? Sometimes Counterattack reports
that such and such a person is "a Communist Party member" and
that another is "a Communist." Is this difference in terminology
intentional? Yes.

All Communist Party members are Communists . . . but not ALL
Communists are Communist Party members. The Communist Party
itself has said that one who supports the Party and cooperates with it
is a Communist, even if he isn't a member. It is in this sense that
Counterattack uses the term.

What does a Communist believe in? Whatever the Party believes in.
The word "communism" with a small "c", or Communism with a big
"C" has meant different things at different times for centuries. We
could use a thousand pages to examine these differences. But the only
sensible definition of "Communism" today is this:

Communism means the practices & REAL doctrines of Stalin Russia.
Not the doctrines that Stalin sometimes pretends to believe in, but those
that he really works at.

And a Communist is anyone who supports the Communist Party on
every important question. Some Communist non-members occasionally
dissent on slight details. That doesn't matter. They're still Com-
munists . . .

As for actual Party membership, Counterattack estimated in its
second issue that there were 80,000 dues-paying Communists hi
the American Party. However, less than two months later, "Count-
erattack investigators" produced an "inside report" that member-
ship was up to 84,000. And, the report continued, "Organizational
Secretary Henry Winston privately expects 90,000 by end of year.
This means 90,000 enlisted dues-paying members ... the 'tank
corps' of a much bigger army of non-member Communists."

The story of Counterattack's concern with those it considers
"fronters" stretches over the entire span of the newsletter's history.

Even by the time Red Channels appeared (in five instances persons
were listed there for only one affiliation), the editors could not,
or did not attempt to, distinguish between "dupes" and ideologues,
a fact widely criticized at the time.

But some decision must be made as to what organizations are
truly "fronts." The newsletter itself recognized the difficulty. In
June, 1947 Counterattack asked: "Which organizations are really
fronts and which aren't? How can a jury be expected to distinguish?
And if a jury does decide that a certain organization is a front, how
can it tell whether the defendant helped it as a Communist or as an
'innocent'? — Some eminent persons, including Supreme Court
justices and conservative multi-millionaires, have innocently spon-
sored Communist fronts."

Nevertheless, on December 19, 1947, after the Attorney Gen-
eral's list had been made public, Counterattack named 34 fronts
not included by the AG which "ought to have been." A few months
later it gave its readers a list of 192 "fronts," 119 of which, it
pointed out, did not appear on the Attorney General's list.

The issue was basic, and one must look to the general obscurity
of the newsletter in these early days in order to understand why it
was not thrashed out then and there.

The issue was whether the American public would accept a
private group, however knowledgeable, fair, careful or scrupulous
it might be, which compiled its own list of subversive organizations
and then put the considerable public pressure at its disposal to
force anyone associated with the organization at any time to
"explain" his association or suffer the consequences. For the most
part, it was not a question of legality but of political prudence.

Another problem came up in deciding who had lent their names
to "fronts" of -whatever citation. The Communists, it is clear, were
not always scrupulous about the use of names. And in its issue for
July 16, 1954, Counterattack noted their duplicity. Under a head-

ing "Red Front Uses Phony Sponsor List," Counterattack men-
tioned a letter being circulated by the Spanish Refugee Appeal of
the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee:

. . . On the letterhead, as national sponsors, were 100 prominent
names. The obvious ones stood out: Howard Fast, Dalton Trumbo and
Alvah Bessie of Hollywood's "unfriendly nine" and Paul Robeson.
Then there were some shockers — names whose appearance on a front's
letterhead in this day and age were unbelievable. They were: Pierre
Monteux, the distinguished conductor; Yehudi Menuhin, the violinist;
Hazel Scott and her husband, Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.; the
composer, Leonard Bernstein; and Bartley C. Crum. Counterattack
wrote to each of them, as well as to others whose names seemed out
of place on a Communist appeal because of their actions of recent
years. From these persons named, and from several others, prompt
replies were received. In each case the person either denied ever having
given authority for the use of their name — and said they would demand
withdrawal — or produced good evidence that they had demanded that
the Appeal drop their names as far back as 1948. (It is only fair, the
editors feel, to omit the names of persons who did not reply or whose
address was unknown.)

But Counterattack was not ready to discount the Communists'
own lists entirely. "Anyone of responsibility," it declared in con-
nection with the "phony" sponsor list, "whose name still might be
improperly attached to such a pro-Communist group has a definite
responsibility of seeing that his name is removed."

A similar case had come up in the pages of Counterattack in
January, 1954. The editors took out after singer Harry Belafonte,
described as a "Communist fronter," and listed, among four trans-
gressions: "Belafonte entertained for the Distributive Workers
Union in 1950." The union at that time, according to Counter-
attack, was a "100% follower of the Party line." Belafonte was also
cited for entertaining at a "Freedom Rally" with Paul Robeson.

In its February 4 issue, the newsletter announced that "Bela-
fonte has since approached Counterattack to clarify his stand."
Belafonte denied he had entertained for the union but admitted

other transgressions. What was Counterattack's proof that Bela-
fonte had "entertained for" this union? As it pointed out in its
pages, "the union's paper of March 12, 1950, stated that he had
entertained at one of its affairs the previous Sunday." For some
reason, Belafonte had not been living up to his responsibility to
protest this use of his name.

In the case of the "Freedom Rally" he made a good try. "Bela-
fonte," the newsletter said about this charge, "says he did not give
Robeson permission to use his name for, and that he did not appear
at, the 'Freedom' rally . . . and that he sent a release to various
New York City newspapers pointing out these facts at the time.
This is verified by the fact that Belafonte has given Counterattack a
copy of a newspaper containing mention of his release." On the
other two counts against Belafonte the newsletter had been right.
But it offered no apology for its own "misuse" of the singer's name.
It said : " 'Counterattack has always held that persons associated with
Communist fronts cannot be 'cleared' by anyone but themselves.
At the same time Counterattack has always been willing to help
such persons in their efforts to clarify their positions and take an
anti-CP stand." The newsletter mentioned that in 1952 Belafonte
had written a private letter to a producer in Hollywood, stating he
would exercise "extreme care in his future associations." "As far
as Counterattack can determine, Belafonte has not supported any
fronts since that time."

Apparently, Belafonte's mistake was that he had not been
"cleared" by the editors of Counterattack.

When Counterattack first appeared, in 1947, the nation was not
yet united on the kind of militant anti-communism that marked
the next few years. American diplomats attended the Moscow Con-
ference in March, in an attempt to stem the mounting animosity
between East and West. Yet, in the same month, President
Truman, in a speech before a joint session of Congress on the need

for aid to Greece and Turkey, warned that "totalitarian regimes
imposed on free peoples by direct or indirect aggression undermine
the foundation of international peace and hence the security of the
United States."

One of the warmest public debates that year was whether or
not to outlaw the American Communist Party, which had been
esablished in 1919. The American Legion and Daughters of the
American Revolution heartily supported the measure. They were
opposed by J. Edgar Hoover, the American Civil Liberties Union
and other groups. The National Commander of the Catholic War
Veterans suggested all Communist Party members be deported
(presumably to Russia). In October, 1947, news of the re-estab-
lishment of the Cominform in Eastern Europe reached the United
States and was largely accepted as proof that the Comintern, a
group dedicated to violent world upheaval and supposedly dis-
solved by Stalin himself in 1943, had been revived.

The Communist Party was a murky image in most minds; but
its very presence in American political life made the problem of
dealing with communism at home and abroad considerably more
difficult and complex.

The inauguration of a newsletter designed to present "facts on
communism" seemed a step in the right direction. Counterattack,
however, concerned itself less with communism than with Commu-
nists and especially those of name or prestige who "helped the
Communists," a variety of "dupes," "stooges," "innocents" and
"appeasers." It was evident, too, that the newsletter was to use
words like "Communist" and "front" in special ways to be found
neither in the public dictionaries nor the public mind. .Favored
words in these early issues of the newsletter were those that identi-
fied the opposing camps — "anti-Communists" (i.e., in agreement
with Counterattack) and "fifth-columnists." These two camps were
engaged in an ideological (and in some sense, economic) civil
war — a war linked with democracy's world-wide struggle against

communism. "Action on the labor front," an early issue claimed,
"must go hand in hand with action against public officials, actors,
writers and so on who cunningly sell the Moscow line." The news-
letter early in its history espoused the denaturalization of Commu-
nists, as the Nazis had been denaturalized, and called for the dis-
barment of lawyers in the National Lawyers Guild.

In its 31 issues for 1947 (it missed twice during that first year
of publication) little space was devoted to the entertainment field
and the slight interest in show folk continued through 1948. Most
of Counterattack's attention was given to communism in the trade
unions. The most important event in the entertainment world, of
course, was the House Un-American Activities Committee inves-
tigation of Hollywood. Counterattack heartily endorsed J. Parnell
Thomas and urged its readers to do likewise. On October 31, it
explained: "Movie Stars, Writers, Directors Have a Divine Right
to be Quislings. This is the implicit meaning of terrific propaganda
drive by Hollywood celebrities and movie producers against
Thomas Committee ... A cat may look at a king but Congress
may not take a square look at the doings of Hollywood royalty." It
went on to cite the Committee for the First Amendment as a
"front," and advised its readers to write their Congressmen in
support of the House probe.

In September, 1947, Counterattack stated its policy:

Most important thing of all is to base your whole policy on a firmly
moral foundation. Space should not be rented to the Communist Party
or to any Communist front. Supplies should not be sold to them. They
should not be allowed to participate in meetings or to have time on the
air or to advertise in the press. No concession should ever be made to
them for any business reason.

Communist actors, announcers, directors, writers, producers, etc.,
whether in radio, theatre, or movies, should all be barred to the extent
permissible by law and union contracts. There should be no avoidable
dealings with any union official who has shown by his acts that he is
secretly a Communist Party member or fellow-traveler.

The newsletter admitted that

Sometimes it won't be easy to follow this rule. But we may as well
recognize that anything we gain now by personal or business appease-
ment will eventually plague us, as international appeasement has al-
ready done.

In October it swung even harder:

The way to treat Communists is to ostracize them. How would you
act towards men who had been convicted of treason? Would you
befriend them, invite them [sic], listen to them? Or would you treat
them as outcasts?

Total ostracism . . . that's the only effective way. It's the only way
to freeze the Communists out. It's the only DEED that will prove you
believe what you say about them. And so it's the most convincing
propaganda.

The newsletter opposed the employment of "fronters" and
"Communists" (members and "non-members") because money
paid to them by American business would find its way to support
propaganda and espionage activities. Occasionally an instance of
direct propaganda was detected and "exposed" in the pages of
Counterattack. From time to time the editors discussed the Party's
use of "historical parallels," especially in plays and movies, and
scrutinized the words of writers it considered subversive.

On August 8, 1947, the following item appeared in the news-
letter:

Arthur Miller has disclosed that the Army has acquired the right to
produce his play "All My Sons" in Germany. So American soldiers
there and many Germans will see a play . . . based on the theme that
U. S. manufacturers produced defective airplanes and .other equipment
during the war, clamly endangering the lives of their own sons . . .
Miller twisted the facts in a central situation in his play. He wrote a
scene in which a manufacturer releases some defective airplane cylinders
to the Army by simply telephoning to his factory and giving instruc-
tions. But in reality no manufacturer had the power to release military
equipment. That was up to Army inspectors in the plant, who generally
were pretty rigorous in their tests. But this point has apparently been

overlooked by some Army authorities in Germany. Who is responsible
for choosing . . . Miller's play. Some innocent in the Army? Or some
Communist?

A few weeks later, the newsletter reported that "National Com-
mander Max H. Sorenson of Catholic War Veterans protested to
War Department which thereupon revoked its plan to produce the
play in occupied zones. . . ." The editors went on to ask: "Are you
speaking out publicly against Communist plans after they are ex-
posed in Counterattack? Max Sorenson's public protest in this case
brought quick results. It should serve as an example to many
subscribers."*

The history of the next seven years showed that it served as a very
good example.

Counterattack turned its attention more and more to the enter-
tainment world. Many of the names later listed in Red Channels
began to get frequent mention in the newsletter. There were de-
mands that such people be ostracized by sincere and conscientious
anti-Communists. When they appeared on radio or television,
Counterattack supporters were urged to protest.

Roughly one month before Red Channels came out, the news-
letter notified its readership that "certain groups in the Association
of Actors and Artistes of America, Radio and Television Directors
Guild, and Radio Writers Guild have gotten together to form an
organization to fight what they claim is a 'blacklist' of radio and
tv performers who are considered 'liberal or leftist.' " Counter-
attack noted that the immediate cause of this step was the firing
of director Betty Todd, who pleaded the Fifth Amendment before
an investigating body. "What," Counterattack asked, "to do?" . . .
"You have written to CBS before to criticize the appearance of

* At $24 a year Counterattack could not expect a mass circulation. It did depend
though on having influential subscribers capable of alerting and mobilizing a much
larger group.

performers with pro-Communist records on its programs. Now
write to Wm. S. Paley, Chairman of the Board of CBS, at 485 Madi-
son Avenue, New York City. Congratulate him for the action
CBS has taken in this case, and tell him to stick to his position in
spite of any pressure exerted to reverse it. Let him know that you
back him up completely."

Shortly afterwards it was June, 1950.

The period from June 20 to June 30, 1950, was a kind of anti-
Communists' Ten Days That Shook the World. In the pages of
the seismographic tabloids in New York, the political rumbles were
picked up in rapid succession. On Tuesday, June 20, columnist
Drew Pearson struck out in the Mirror at Representative Wood,
then Chairman of the House Un-American Activities Committee,
for not following through on Parnell Thomas' investigation of
Hollywood. On Wednesday, June 21, Ed Sullivan in the Daily
News predicted: "A bombshell will be dropped into the offices of
radio-tv networks, advertising agencies and sponsors this week,
with the publication of Red Channels." On Thursday, Red Chan-
nels was published. The next day, June 23, the Mirror reported:

RED INFILTRATION OF TV, RADIO BARED

Details of Red infiltration in the radio and television broadcast fields,
together with names of well-known personalities allegedly linked with
Communist causes are contained in the book "Red Channels," pub-
lished yesterday.

The book was compiled by the editors of "Counterattack," a weekly
anti-Communist newsletter, with the help of former FBI agents, includ-
ing Theodore Kirkpatrick, specialist in Communist cases.

Methods used by the Communists to ensnare radio and television
artists are presented in the book, which describes a "blacklist" system
whereby they attempt to freeze anti-Red persons out of the industry.
Those who support the Communists, the book says, are boosted with
better jobs.

On Sunday, two days later, the first reports of the Korean con-
flict began trickling across the pages of the nation's newspapers.

Five days later, when Walter WinchelTs Girl Friday's report ap-
peared in the Mirror, she spoke of a shakeup in radio-tv and cited
as the cause of it not Red Channels but that other explosion — the
Korean War. "Dear Mr. W.," Girl Friday wrote, "The Korean
crisis sent network officials into action to rid programs of 'persons
who might embarrass them.' "

The editors of Counterattack, throughout the summer, kept their
readers informed of Red Channels' impact. The day after Red
Channels was published, Counterattack warned:

IN AN EMERGENCY (at any given time)

IT WOULD REQUIRE ONLY THREE PERSONS (subversives)

one engineer in master control at a radio network

one director in a radio studio

one VOICE before a microphone
TO REACH 90 MILLION AMERICAN PEOPLE
WITH A MESSAGE*

Two weeks later it was able to report: "Nationwide Reception
of Red Channels Is Overwhelmingly Favorable. Since publication
of Counterattack's report, two weeks ago, on Communist influence
in the radio and television industry, favorable notices and praise
for Red Channels have appeared in broadcasting industry publica-
tions and in daily newspapers from New York to Los Angeles. Ed
Sullivan, master of ceremonies of the popular tv show Toast of the
Town,' praised Red Channels highly in his nationally syndicated
column, 'Little Old New York.' One of the things stressed by
Sullivan was the importance and power of Counterattack hi the
radio and television industry."

The newsletter, however, added that "Counterattack, in itself, has
no power or importance. Any influence Counterattack has exerted
for good in the broadcasting industry has come from the loyal

*Val Peterson, Administrator of Federal Civil Defense, stated in June, 1955,
that "in actual civil defense emergencies, use would be made, as required, of the
various forms of existing communications which are governed by appropriate
Federal Communications Commission regulations."

freedom-loving Americans who are subscribers and who act on the
information given in the newsletter."

One of the first Red Channels listees to come forward with an
"explanation" was actor Roger De Koven, who had one citation
(the Waldorf Peace Conference) . In the July 7 edition of Counter-
attack his case was covered.

After a consultation which impressed Counterattack with his sin-
cerity, De Koven signed a statement embodying the following clauses:
"1. He has absolutely no sympathy for the Communist movement,
domestic or foreign and is opposed to totalitarians of all kinds. 2. He
believes that the present government of Russia under Stalin, is an
absolute dictatorship and completely undemocratic. 3. At the time he
agreed to sponsor the Waldorf Conference he did not know that it was
a Communist front affair. If he had known its true nature he would
not have sponsored it. His stand on this matter applies to all Commu-
nist fronts, present or future. 4. When he agreed to read the speech
of Dr. Juan Marinello of Cuba and message of writer Thomas Mann
at the Conference, he did not know that Marinello was Chairman of
Communist Party of Cuba or that Mann had an extensive record of
Communist front activity.*

Red Channels listees continued to be named each week in the
newsletter, to show that they were still active in the entertainment
field. The immediate cry went up that the booklet was intended as a
blacklist. But Counterattack was ready for the charge. On July 28
it dealt with the problem:

But the whole "blacklist" question is a sham. "Blacklisting," the
firing of a person (or refusal to hire him) for .union activity, is for-
bidden by federal and state laws. A union local resolution cannot add
strength to these laws. They are already completely effective.

Groups interested in this campaign are really concerned about what
they call "political" blacklisting. But broadcasting companies don't

* De Koven was cited solely for his participation in the Waldorf Peace Confer-
ence: "translated message received from Thomas Mann; also translated speech of
Dr. Juan Marinello of Cuba."

blacklist Republicans, Democrats, Socialists or any other loyal
Americans.

They do have an obligation, as a matter of public trust, to refuse to
hire those who give aid and comfort to Stalin by helping his U.S. arm,
the Communist Party, or its numerous front organizations.

Just what individuals listed in Red Channels had to do to get off
the hook was discussed in September, 1950. In a zig-zag of affirma-
tion and denial, Counterattack tried to clear up the matter:

What the New York Times Said and Didn't Say. Last week Counter-
attack reported that the New York Herald Tribune had stated in an
editorial that Ted Kirkpatrick, managing editor of Counterattack, had
been "quoted as announcing that none whom he suspects will be
absolved until they have come to him with positive proof of their
innocence" and that later "the New York Times reported this falsehood
as a fact."

Actually the Times didn't say quite that. It said that Kirkpatrick
"said he believed persons accused of pro-Communist sympathies had
to offer affirmative proof of their innocence." Many readers inferred
that this meant that such proof had to be offered to him, though the
Times didn't say so. Naturally, such a doctrine is repellent to Ameri-
canism and to justice. Nobody who is merely accused of anything has
to offer affirmative proof of innocence to anybody.

A few more listees came forward in October with statements of
denial and/or recantation. The newsletter noted their statements
in its pages.

Meanwhile, Counterattack subscribers and the groups they
alerted were bombarding the networks with letters and receiving
replies from one network (CBS) assuring them that "through
our control of programs on the air, we believe we have made Com-
munist infiltration impossible." Whereupon the newsletter armed
its subscribers with the names of nine persons who had recently
appeared on CBS. All were Red Channels listees. It seemed clear
that CBS and Counterattack were talking about two different things
when they spoke of "infiltration."

About this time, Red Channels was fast becoming a source in
itself. The booklet of course has long been replaced, but since one
of its authors* has stated that the "basic issue" of such compila-
tions is in their "accuracy," and has carried this conviction over into
AWARE, Inc., a more recent effort "to combat the Communist con-
spiracy in entertainment-communications," a look at Red Channels
may still be of some value.

"The most remarkable thing about the whole furor over AWARE,"
Vincent Hartnett wrote the Editor of The New York Times, "is
that none of A WARE'S critics seem inclined to discuss the basic
issue: Was A WARE'S Publication No. 12 accurate or was it not?"
Publication No. 12 is a compilation similar to Red Channels. The
compilations are lists of the leftist activities of various show people,
and the burden of the argument seems to be that those listed are
either "dupes" or genuine subversives. On the basis of such lists,
people are decreed "unemployable." Hartnett would have it that
the "basic issue" is whether these publications faithfully and hon-
estly report what is in their source documents. The defining of the
"basic issue," then, seems to represent in its small way the Triumph
of the Clerk. Indeed the impression left by a study of Hartnett's
work leads one to believe that he has modeled himself after
Chaucer's Clerk of Oxenford:

Noght o word spak he moore than was neede
And that was seyd in forme and reverence
And short and quyk and full of hy sentence

In defining the "basic issue," Vincent Hartnett is on safe grounds,
for there is no question of his clerkly talents — Red Channels is a
model of transcription. Its compiler faithfully copied down the
citations in the original sources. His slight errors are wholly for-
givable, considering the tedium of the task he set himself to. So if

* Vincent Hartnett, though never an editor of Counterattack, wrote the introduc-
tion to the book and speaks of it as "my Red Channels."

Hartnett has correctly stated the "basic issue," he and AWARE,
Inc. and all the others have won the argument hands down.

But has he?

It should be remembered that nearly all the official documents
cited by the professional anti-Communist are tabulations of names
made by the Communists themselves. No hearings have been held
to determine whether or not the use of these names was authorized.
In some cases they were not authorized. But, that aside, has Vin-
cent Hartnett defined the "basic issue"? Are those whose minds
float toward ethical abstracts, who wish to discuss issues of "in-
nuendo," "due process," "civil liberties," or "slander" out of touch
with current reality? That is a quarrel which has separated pro-
and anti-blacklisting factions in labor unions, newspaper offices,
theatre companies and living rooms ever since Red Channels
appeared.

Page 9 of Red Channels, which sets forth the authors' purposes,
seems to be the most unread section of the book. Three purposes
are listed:

One, to show how the Communists have been able to carry out their
plan of infiltration of the radio and television industry.

Two, to indicate the extent to which many prominent actors and
artists have been inveigled to lend their names, according to these
public records, to organizations espousing Communist causes. This,
regardless of whether they actually believe in, sympathize with, or even
recognize the cause advanced.

Three, to discourage actors and artists from naively lending their
names to Communist organizations or causes in the future.

One or two points, raised by the first of these purposes, still seem
worthy of discussion. The first purpose begs two questions: Did the
Communists have a "plan of infiltration"? The word "infiltration"
is vague at best - it might mean "gaining influence" or "executive
control" or it might mean "technical control." Only the first of these
would fit the instances cited in Red Channels. Granted, however,

that there was such a plan, the second question is whether these
subversive elements were able to carry it out.

Certainly, in the beginning, the networks, and possibly the ad
agencies and sponsors, did not understand what Counterattack
meant by "infiltration." When complaints came in about this or that
one working, industry spokesmen answered that they had full
control over everything heard on the air.

The second purpose indicates that the compilers are not separat-
ing the "guilty" from the "innocent." They are simply listing every-
one at the scene of the crime — and leave it to each to establish
his innocence. "According to these public records," the compilers
assert. And since the citations are generally accurate, and since
Vincent Hartnett says their accuracy is the "basic issue," then . . .
But what happens when the source document is wrong?

Pianist Hazel Scott, who was listed in Red Channels and is the
wife of a Congressman, was given the opportunity (because of her
husband's status) to testify, under oath, about her Red Channels
listings. She had nine listings :

National Citizens Political Action Committee

Citizens Non-Partisan Committee to Elect Benjamin J. Davis

Progressive Citizens of America (Citizens Committee of the

Upper West Side)
Musician's Congress Committee
Artists' Front to Win the War

American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born
American Peace Mobilization
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee
Civil Rights Congress

After stating that she had never been notified her name was to
appear in this unfavorable context, Miss Scott ran down the list:

One of these listings was for an appearance, by direction of my
employer, which was perfectly proper at the time. Another was osten-
sibly a series of benefits for orphaned children. As soon as I found out
otherwise I discontinued my activity. Still another involved the use of

my name three years after I played a benefit for a group which there-
after merged with one that developed a bad name. A fourth advertised
that I was a guest of honor at a dinner I never went to or even heard of.
Three others I refused to join. The remaining two I never heard of.

The "guest of honor" and three other listings in Red Channels
were supported by reference to the House Committee's own "Ap-
pendix IX." Did the Committee decide that if "Appendix IX"
could be so wrong about one person the document should be re-
examined? No. Did it apologize, in this one instance? Again, no.
The members were more interested in whether or not Red Channels
was accurate in its citation of the document. If it was, why was
Miss Scott complaining? Miss Scott, not too irrelevantly, pointed
out that it was of little consequence that Red Channels was accurate
if "Appendix IX" was not. But the Committee said it was just ad-
vancing a courtesy to her and was not interested in "Appendix IX."

The First Cases

IN RADIO AND TELEVISION, blacklisting began in a blaze of pub-
licity and became an institution in secrecy.

From 1949 until '51 a series of front-page cases spotlighted the
hiring policies of the networks, sponsors and agencies in New York.
In the William Sweets, Jean Muir, Ireene Wicker and Elmer Rice
cases, the public was involved in a national debate on the question.
Each new development was reported in the theatrical trade press and
the nation's newspapers. Editorials were written, meetings were
held, organized groups took sides. But by the end of 1951, it was
clear to the industry's leaders that a public debate about political
screening would arouse a controversy almost as distasteful as any
centered on the alleged pro-Communist sympathies of producers,
directors and actors.

There was no conspiratorial decision on the part of radio-tv
management — there was simply a Gentlemen's Agreement to keep
silence. The industry decided that the public debate must come to
an end. It accepted blacklisting as a burden of its day-to-day ex-
istence but, for good reasons, decided that this fact must be kept
secret. Blacklisting was institutionalized behind closed doors.

When General Foods fired the television actress Jean Muir from
her role in "The Aldrich Family," protests came in from two com-
peting groups. One set of critics threatened to boycott General
Foods if Jean Muir appeared as Henry Aldrich's mother; another
threatened a boycott if the actress were fired. Either way, the com-
pany stood to lose customers. More than that, General Foods ran

the risk of having its name associated with a bitter political con-
troversy. If, to satisfy its right-wing critics, it decided that Jean
Muir could not work, liberal pressure groups would denounce it
for violating American tradition. If it attempted to stand by that
tradition and retain the actress, it faced the danger of being charged
with indifference to national security.

The resolution — for General Foods and ultimately for the entire
industry of networks, advertising agencies, sponsors and packagers
— was to placate the right-wing group and silence the liberals. The
strategic key was secrecy. If there were a discreet check into the
background of employees before they were hired, then the local
groups of the American Legion, the Catholic War Veterans, or the
readers of Counterattack would have no cause to write letters or
phone in their protests. And since there would be no firings, be-
cause controversial persons were not hired in the first place, the
liberal groups would be frustrated.

The inevitable result of such a solution was the institutionalizing
of blacklisting. Some advertising agencies, like Batten, Barton,
Durstine and Osborn, appointed executives to serve as "security
officers." At the Columbia Broadcasting System a vice president
was appointed to implement the network's policy. At the National
Broadcasting Company and a number of advertising agencies,
legal departments were entrusted with this duty. One of the larger
packagers under fire set up a "white list." A new profession was
developed. Independent "consultants," like the publishers of
Counterattack and Vincent Hartnett (the keeper of File 13, a. land
of expanded Red Channels) , made a business out of servicing spon-
sors and agencies who did not have a full-time executive on the job.

Political discrimination had existed in the radio industry before
1949. The Communists themselves exerted considerable influence
over certain shows. On these programs, Party members and their
sympathizers found work easy to come by; their enemies were often

out in the cold. Various sponsors intervened from time to time to
bar certain persons on political grounds. A well-known radio
producer remembers being told not to use Mrs. Roosevelt, or
anyone like her, on a quiz panel long before blacklisting was insti-
tutionalized. Yet this kind of discrimination was informal and
personal. It was accepted as one of the normal hazards in a highly
competitive industry. Systematic political screening did not begin
until some time in late 1950 or early '51, though its origins date
back to '49.

In the spring of that year, William Sweets, a well-known radio
director employed by the Phillips H. Lord packaging firm in New
York, was told that the sponsors of the two shows he worked on
had raised questions about his political associations. Sweets later
said publicly that he was forced to resign. A group called the Voice
of Freedom Committee took an interest in his case and loudly pro-
tested the forced resignation. (Later, attendance at Voice of Free-
dom rallies for Sweets was noted on various dossiers as evidence of
pro-Communist sympathy.) All this was widely publicized.

Then, in the fall of 1950, a series of Red Channels cases became
public. Jean Muir was dropped from the Aldrich show; Ireene
Wicker, the Singing Lady, had her television program cancelled;
Gypsy Rose Lee* and Hazel Scott were under attack. Around the
same time, CBS, the Young and Rubicam agency and General
Foods (sponsor in the Jean Muir case) began to discuss the difn-

* Miss Lee was attacked by Edward damage, a prominent Chicago Legionnaire.
She had been cited in Red Channels for collaborating with four groups labelled
Red. When the charge was made, she drew up a list of about 300 of her benefit
appearances which Red Channels failed to mention. "Entertainers are always being
asked to help causes, and they all sound innocuous," she stated. "Should we wire
our Congressmen to investigate before we do a benefit performance? I'm not a
Red and never have been."

Robert E. Kintner, president of the American Broadcasting Company, refused
to act on damage's complaint, stating that he would not accept Red Channels as
gospel. He demanded that damage provide "proof that Gypsy is a Communist."
damage could only refer to Red Channels, and the case ended there.

culties surrounding the employment of Philip Loeb, who played
Jake on "The Goldbergs." These cases attracted headlines.

In 1951 the McCarran Internal Security Subcommittee held
hearings on the "Subversive Infiltration of Radio, Television and the
Entertainment Industry." Two radio writers invoked the Fifth
Amendment at this hearing. A number of friendly witnesses told
of Communist efforts to blacklist anti-Communists in the industry.
When the Committee released an edited version of the hearings
(immediately before a Radio Writers Guild election in the fall of
1952), the story hit the front pages.

By 1952, a writer, actor, director or producer listed in Red
Channels, cited in Counterattack or otherwise charged with Com-
munist sympathies found it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to
get work without first being cleared. By this time political screen-
ing was almost universally practiced on Madison Avenue. An
elaborate blacklisting machinery had been set up. But in the
cases which arose before 1952 the elements were all present.

In the late Forties an executive at the Phillips H. Lord office in
New York received a job-application from a young Navy veteran
named Vincent Hartnett. Hartnett was hired by the radio packag-
ing firm.

One of the men with whom Hartnett worked at the Lord office
was Bill Sweets, who had many friends in the radio field and was
generally regarded as a top director. Sweets was in charge of
"Gangbusters" and "Counterspy." His blacklisting troubles began
one day when he was informed by a Lord executive that Clarence
Francis, president of General Foods, and Walter Mack, of Pepsi-
Cola — sponsors of the Sweets shows — had received letters charg-
ing that the programs were being directed by a Communist who
hired other Communists and discriminated against anti-Commu-
nists. For three weeks the Lord office dealt with these sponsors and
their agencies (Young & Rubicam for General Foods; Biow for

Pepsi-Cola) in an effort to solve the problem. But eventually the
packaging firm executives decided that they had to choose between
Sweets and the sponsors. The company felt it could not afford to
lose two such big accounts. Sweets was asked to turn in his
resignation.

The director was permitted to remain at his job until the season
was completed, but his right to name his own casting lists was
limited immediately. There were rumors in the office at the time
that Hartnett was exercising an influence over the choice of actors
for the shows, but they have never been substantiated. In any event,
during the same period Hartnett began to write as a specialist on
Communist infiltration into the radio-tv industry. It was widely
known that an anonymous article on that subject which appeared in
The Sign, a Catholic monthly published hi New Jersey, was written
by him. And in 1950, Hartnett collaborated with the editors of
Counterattack on Red Channels.

During the summer of 1949, Sweets was out of New York. The
Radio Directors Guild tried to negotiate his case with the Lord
office but failed. Earlier, Sweets had resigned his post as National
President of that Guild when he was called upon to sign a non-
Communist affidavit.* In announcing Sweets' resignation, Nicky
Burnett, executive secretary of the Radio Directors, had described
him as a "fighter against communism." (Sweets remained a mem-
ber of the Guild hi good standing after he left the presidency.)

That same summer Sweets was approached by the Voice of Free-
dom Committee and asked to appear at a rally in New York. The
Committee, which had been organized to support liberal com-

* Sweets later stated: "The only unions whose officers are required to sign the
affidavit are those which desire the service of the National Labor Relations Board.
The Union of which I was international president, the Radio and Television
Directors Guild, has had no need up to the present time of the Labor Relations
Board's services, and therefore has not filed non-Communist affidavits with the
Board . . . My reason for not signing such an affidavit was and is that once
people start asking for affidavits, they sometimes don't know when to stop."

mentators and harass "reactionaries," used more or less the same
techniques the pro-blacklisting groups later relied on. When a
"liberal" commentator was dropped, or a "reactionary" newscaster
appeared on the air, the Voice of Freedom screamed and its fol-
lowers directed their protests to stations or networks.

The VOF meeting for Sweets was held at the Hotel Abbey in
New York, August 11, 1949. Variety reported that about 200
writers, directors and actors attended the meeting. (Later, when
they were trying to clear themselves, many had to "explain" why
they attended.) In his speech at the meeting, Sweets charged that
the industry was developing a blacklisting policy. He charged that
the American Legion maintained a "list" of actors and actresses in
Hollywood (quoting columnist Jimmy Fidler as his authority).
"As I see it," he told his supporters, "a blacklist is a device, per-
fectly legal in most instances — whereby the principle of 'exclu-
sivity' may be exercised. It is a list of people who are to be ex-
cluded, and it is the list that is usually kept secret. Kept secret
because in a democracy to appear to be exclusive isn't the thing to
do." He concluded: "Nor is it loyalty to the United States that is
really questioned in the case of persons whose names are on black-
lists today. It is rather their loyalty to ideas of free action —
loyalty I am convinced in my case — to the ideas of the National
Association of Manufacturers and the American Association of
Advertising Agencies ... I do not intend, at the request of some
sponsors, to give up my sponsorship of meetings such as this — of
May Day parades, or of world peace."

Later that fall the Voice of Freedom Committee held another
protest meeting at Town Hall and circulated a leaflet which repro-
duced newspaper stories about blacklisting, statements from various
theatrical unions and guilds, and carried a message from Sweets.
(This rally was also cited in Red Channels as a Communist
undertaking. )

In Sweets' speech at the first rally he made no charges against

Hartnett by name. Whatever connection is made between the
Sweets firing and Hartnett's own activity at the time is largely a
deduction drawn from the "talent consultant's" later operations.
Nevertheless, it is clear that Hartnett's association with the Lord
company, and his experience in the Sweets case, contributed to the
thesis he expanded on in The Sign, Red Channels, American Mer-
cury and the American Legion Magazine.

The case of William Sweets foreshadowed what was to come.
The central point was the proposition that Communists were using
their influence in the industry to hire their friends and discriminate
against their enemies. This allegation persisted throughout the de-
velopment of blacklisting and continued long after most of the
people charged with Communist sympathies could no longer find
work. As late as the summer of 1955, Godfrey P. Schmidt, presi-
dent of AWARE, Inc., repeated the charge in a dispute with John
Crosby, radio-tv writer for the New York Herald Tribune.

But more important than the actual personalities involved in the
Sweets affair was the reaction within the industry itself. Significant
companies were concerned: General Foods, Pepsi-Cola, Young &
Rubicam, Biow and Phillips H. Lord, Inc. Their behavior was the
first indication of how relatively easy it would be for outside pres-
sure groups to gain significant control over hiring and firing.

The sponsors were reacting to a few letters. There was no evi-
dence of an organized boycott; only a handful of listeners were
protesting. But the officials decided to act on the complaints and
called in the advertising agencies to assist them. Within three weeks
it was generally agreed that Sweets should be asked to resign. On
the part of the packager, the decision was clearly based on commer-
cial considerations — a fear of losing two major accounts — and not
on any dissatisfaction with the director himself or with the way he
was casting his shows.

The radio-tv industry, of course, is singularly susceptible to pres-
sure. Hollywood certainly goes out of its way to avoid offending

any significant section of the public. But the film industry has been
willing to deal with controversial subjects (racial prejudice, for
example) as long as the prospect of a heightened interest in some
quarters promises to compensate for moviegoers who might be lost.
The radio-tv industry, though, is devoted to advertising. Sponsors
seek "100% acceptability" for their products. Any group, however
small, which is alienated because of the content of a radio or
television show, or because of a performer on the show, must be
placated.

The Sweets affair differed from most of the blacklisting cases
which came later in so far as it was allowed to become public. In
1949 it seemed to be an isolated incident. Red Channels — and the
Korean War — were yet to come. The full development of black-
listing would take two or three years. Still it now seems clear that
the ultimate outcome was inevitable from the beginning. For if the
industry would surrender to pressure in 1949, then as the Cold War
intensified (and the pressures intensified), it was only a matter
of time until systematic political screening would become an
institution.

During the first year of Red Channels' existence, blacklisting
developed in contradictory fashion. At one point General Foods,
the sponsor involved in both the Sweets and Jean Muir cases, an-
nounced that it would no longer fire performers simply because
they were "controversial." But by the middle of 1951, that brave
statement seemed in retrospect to have been merely a momentary
challenge to an overwhelming trend. Throughout 1950 various
pressure groups and powerful individuals combined their efforts in
a campaign to make Red Channels a near absolute criterion for hir-
ing in the radio-tv industry. By and large the campaign succeeded.

"The Aldrich Family" was a television program sponsored by
General Foods. In August, 1950, Young & Rubicam, General
Foods' advertising agency for the Jell-O show, announced that Jean

Muir, a former movie actress, had been assigned the role of Mother
Aldrich. Miss Muir was to make her first appearance on August 27.
Shortly after the announcement that she would join the show, an
editor of Counterattack, Theodore Kirkpatrick, called several per-
sons and asked them to organize a protest. Jean Muir was listed in
Red Channels. As a result of the protests, Miss Muir was dropped
from the show, paid the full amount called for by her contract, and
another former movie actress, Nancy Carroll, took her place.

The people who made the phone calls resulting in the Muir fir-
ing were typical of the individuals and pressure groups that are still
the backbone of blacklisting. For the most part they are vocal sup-
porters of the far right wing of American politics. Several of them
later emerged as vociferous partisans of Senator McCarthy. Though
few in number, they represented the threat of a potential boycott
and a controversy that could only be anathema to any corporation
intent on pleasing everybody.

Among those Kirkpatrick called was Mrs. Hester McCullough
of Greenwich, Connecticut, wife of a Time editor. Mrs. McCul-
lough had recently been involved in a legal suit with Paul Draper,
the dancer, and the harmonica player Larry Adler. She had ac-
cused these two entertainers of pro-Communist sympathy.

Rabbi Benjamin Schultz, of the Joint Committee Against Com-
munism in New York, called to protest Miss Muir's appearance
and claimed he was speaking for two million Americans. Neither in
the Muir case nor in those that came up later did the industry at-
tempt to check on whether those who acted as organization spokes-
men had received authorization from their memberships. There is
little doubt, though, that in most cases they would have been given
general support. But how many people were aroused was hardly
relevant, for to sponsors even a small group represents a potential
threat.

In 1952 Merle Miller reported in The Judges and the Judged
that General Foods hired Dr. George Gallup's research organization

to make a survey of the actual impact of the Muir case. This was
during a violent controversy debated in newspapers throughout the
United States. Miller quoted an official spokesman for General
Foods:

Less than 40% [of the cross section] had ever heard of the Muir
affair. And of those that had, less than three percent could relate the
name of General Foods or the product involved, Jell-O, with the name
of Muir. They tied up the name of Muir hazily with General Mills,
even the Bell Telephone Company. To check up further, we telephoned
several General Foods sales offices in other cities like Chicago. We
asked "How has the Muir publicity affected our sales?" The answer
invariably was, "Muir? Who's Muir?"

The General Foods sales offices did not know the name Jean
Muir but the name was to become symbolic in the radio-tv industry.
Her firing was the first directly attributable to Red Channels.

Today Miss Muir, though cleared, no longer appears on televi-
sion. "A performer who has even been unfairly charged with com-
munism — as Jean Muir was — is like a bruised apple," a tv execu-
tive explained not long ago. "You understand don't you? — the
brown spot remains." Miss Muir — who was celebrating her twen-
tieth year in show business on the very day she was fired — has
turned her energies to social work.

The Muir affair reveals something about the pressures which
beset the industry. The case of Ireene Wicker is interesting for what
it tells about Red Channels and the attitudes of those professionally
involved in agitating for political screening. Miss Wicker signed a
contract to do a television show for the Kellogg Company hi Feb-
ruary, 1949. The contract was renewed a year later. Then in June,
1950 her name was listed in Red Channels and in August the con-
tract was cancelled.

When Red Channels came out, John Crosby, the radio-tv column-
ist, telephoned Miss Wicker to tell her she was among those listed.

Later, Crosby wrote a column entitled "Any of You Children Been
Subverted Recently?" He wrote:

Somebody put her name down on the Committee [for the re-election
of Benjamin J. Davis] and she has been smeared like so many people
are smeared nowadays ... In 1945 — her most suspicious activity —
Miss Wicker loaned her house for a benefit for Spanish refugee chil-
dren. Miss Wicker was under the misapprehension that children were
essentially non-political animals . . .

After she discovered she had been "listed," Ireene Wicker de-
cided to visit the Counterattack office and talk with Theodore
Kirkpatrick. Kirkpatrick discussed the Daily Worker story which
numbered her among those who signed a nominating petition for
Benjamin Davis, Communist candidate for the New York City
Council in 1945. Miss Wicker told the Counterattack editor she
had not been in New York City at the time the petition was circu-
lated early in 1945, had never even heard of Benjamin Davis and
certainly could not recall ever having signed a petition for his
nomination. Kirkpatrick answered that he had reprinted the facts
as they appeared in the Daily Worker.

He shifted the conversation then to a discussion of what Miss
Wicker had done to express her opposition of communism. She
cited several patriotic activities — she conducted an "I'm glad I am
an American because. . . ." contest for children, she recorded a
series based on American history entitled "Sing a Song of History,"
etc. But Kirkpatrick was not impressed. Then the actress men-
tioned that she had allowed her only son to enlist in the Royal
Canadian Air Force before he was 18. The boy, who was shot
down in Europe, joined up in 1940, during the Hitler-Stalin pact,
a time when American Communists were engaged in their "Yanks
Are Not Coming" campaign. But even that was not enough. Miss
Wicker left the Counterattack office without convincing Kirkpatrick.

Later she obtained a court order so her lawyer could examine

all 30,000 names on the nominating petitions for Benjamin Davis.
Her name was not among those listed.
In October, Counterattack reported:

Ireene Wicker . . . has made the following statement to Counter-
attack: "I emphatically declare I am not, never have been and never
could be a Communist or Communist sympathizer in any sense of
these terms. The fundamental doctrine of Communism is abhorrent
to me. It is in direct opposition to the American principles I have
always upheld and advocated." The statement in Red Channels that the
Daily Worker of September 15, 1945 reported her as a sponsor of the
Artists, Writers and Professional Division of the Committee for the
Re-election of Benjamin J. Davis is true, Miss Wicker says. She states,
however, that she was not aware of this fact until publication of Red
Channels. She absolutely denies the Daily Worker report that she was
a sponsor of this committee. She also denies categorically that she ever
supported Davis for re-election, that she gave his campaign committee
permission to use her name or that she knew her name had been used
by the committee. Miss Wicker recently wrote a letter to the Daily
Worker demanding a retraction of its report that she sponsored the
Davis committee. She received a reply from David Freedman of the
law firm of Unger, Freedman and Fleischer, attorneys for the Daily
Worker, which states that the Worker story was based on a news release
from the Davis committee which did not contain the signatures of the
sponsors listed. Freedman said that the Daily Worker "regrets very
much if that publication contained any error of fact."

Counterattack's action in printing Miss Wicker's statement, and
those of other Red Channels listees, was picked up by the New
York press. Part of the newsletter's release, as quoted in the New
York Post for October 27, 1950, said: ''Counterattack wishes to
repeat that Red Channels did not call Miss Wicker, or any other
person mentioned in the report, a Communist or a Communist sym-
pathizer." The Daily News radio and television column for the 27th,
written by Ben Gross, was headed "Ireene Wicker Cleared." Gross
concluded his piece : "Last night, reports circulated in broadcasting
circles that both Miss Muir and Miss Wicker would soon return to

the air." And the next day, the New York Mirror commented
"Ireene Wicker . . . will be back on the air any day now. She has
been cleared of charges that she was a sponsor of a committee . . ."

But years were to pass before Ireene Wicker actually returned
to the air. She never regained the professional standing she had
before Red Channels was published.

When her agent tried to sell the Singing Lady show during 1951
and '52 he heard: "What about Red Channels? We wouldn't touch
her with a ten foot pole." Her only work during this period was a
radio series on a small station in North Adams, Massachusetts.
(There were no protests.) Miss Wicker was permitted to make
guest appearances. She was once interviewed on the Tex and Jinx
show, but after a second program with them had been scheduled,
NBC called to tell her it was cancelled. Finally in 1953 she was
given an ABC show which went on the air Sundays at 11 :30 in the
morning. This program continued through 1954 under the sponsor-
ship of Little Lady Toiletries. During the entire run of the program
only one protesting letter was received. The program was finally
dropped but Red Channels was not connected with the decision to
give it up. Since then Miss Wicker has not had a regular show.

Miss Wicker's post-Red Channels experience illustrates a prob-
lem faced by many performers who are blacklisted and later cleared.
At the time of her trouble, the Singing Lady was riding a wave of
popularity built up over a period of years. Then, just as television
was beginning to boom and it was very important that she stay in
the public eye, she was fired. Though she has long since been
cleared, it is impossible for her to regain the years lost. The Red
Channels experience has obviously had a permanent effect on her
career.

On September 26, 1950, General Foods announced it was "tem-
porarily" suspending the policy which led to the dismissal of Jean
Muir. In making this statement the company also said that its

action had been prompted by the questions raised about Philip
Loeb's employment on "The Goldbergs" show. Four letters had
been received protesting Loeb's appearance. According to the press
release, three were addressed to CBS, one to General Foods.

It seemed then that General Foods was resisting the growth of
blacklisting and had decided that some kind of solution could be
worked out. But at best, this was a surface impression. For in
the statement accompanying the General Foods announcement
there was a clear implication that the problem was anything but
solved. General Foods said:

Discussions are now taking place in the industry to find a construc-
tive solution to the broad problems growing out of such disloyalty
charges. In view of this development and in consideration of any who
are associated with our radio and television programs, General Foods
will temporarily suspend application of the company's long standing
policy covering use of controversial material and personalities. We
will encourage and cooperate with any constructive effort towards a
lasting solution which will be fair and equitable to all parties concerned.

Loeb remained on "The Goldbergs" from the fall of 1950 until
spring, '51. During that period, meeting after meeting was held be-
tween General Foods, CBS, Young and Rubicam, Gertrude Berg,
the star and owner of the show, and others concerned with his
problem. No "lasting solution" resulted from these "constructive
efforts." Far from indicating that some candid method of dealing
with blacklisting was in the offing, the General Foods' statement
actually preluded the complete triumph of political screening.

Loeb once told about a meeting held during the period when
he was on the air but still under fire. It took place in a room at the
General Foods office. Clarence Francis, president of General
Foods, and Frank Stanton, president of CBS, were there. Loeb
arrived with Mrs. Berg. Francis asked him when he was going to
clear himself and remove the cloud that hung over him. Loeb said
he felt "doomed" when the suggestion was made. He had thought

it was going to be possible to solve his problem without passing
through humiliating "clearance" procedures.

It all began in the summer of 1950. Mrs. Berg had been in Holly-
wood making a film. When she returned to New York she was told
about Red Channels; Loeb was among those listed. CBS was ex-
pecting trouble and General Foods had already expressed concern.
Nothing was definite, no decisions had been made, but some action
would have to be taken. (If General Foods' policy statement in late
September was accurate, only four protests had been received at
this time; yet these four were enough to precipitate a crisis on the
top level of the industry.)

Those close to Mrs. Berg at the time say she was shocked. She
thought it "un-American" that anyone should demand Loeb be fired
on the basis of unproved charges. General Foods had not threatened
to cancel the show and Frank Stanton of CBS was sympathetic.
During this period Mrs. Berg vigorously defended Loeb. Blacklist-
ing was still a dirty word and the industry had not yet learned to
live with it. Loeb rejected a suggestion that he make a speech over
the Voice of America. He felt that this would involve compromis-
ing his position; by going through even this much of a "clearance"
procedure, he thought he would be giving support to those who
made the charges against him in the first place. (He later denied
under oath that he was a Communist. ) Eventually, Loeb did agree
to make some public statements on communism, but they were not
widely reported and did little to help.

The Goldbergs show, with Loeb playing Jake, ran for 39 weeks.
During that time there were numerous meetings. Every 13th week
the situation was completely reviewed and a new attempt to find a
solution made — but all failed. No outside agency had yet moved in
to take over the industry's responsibility for its own hiring policies.
There were suggestions that an impartial board be set up to "judge"
people like Loeb, but nothing came of them. Within the talent
unions there was agitation for some kind of action, but the unions

were already so rent by factional struggles over the blacklist issue
that, again, nothing was done.

When the Goldbergs show ended its regular season in the spring
of 1951 it was dropped by General Foods and moved over to NBC.
And when it returned to the air, Phil Loeb was no longer playing
Jake. This, then, was the final solution of the problem. In the
New York Journal- American for August 25, 1951, radio-television
columnist Jack O'Brian announced what everyone knew: the real
reason "The Goldbergs" had lost its sponsor on CBS was Loeb's
presence on the program. O'Brian noted that Phil Loeb was gone
"after a long and luxurious hiatus in [CBS's] pink-tinged boudoir."

Loeb reached a contract settlement with Mrs. Berg in January,
1952. But as the late George Heller, an official of the television
artists union, said at the time: "And so a settlement was made, a
financial settlement but not a settlement of the issue." "The issue,"
Loeb stated in a memo to the national board of the Television
Authority, "is my blacklisting. I did not come to my union for a
financial settlement ... I came for truth and justice. I am still
seeking truth and justice ... I am deprived of work because of a
cowardly, furtive smear campaign. The issue has not been settled
... I claim that although innocent I have been ousted from my
work and hounded from my profession by a dirty, undercover job."

After he was dropped from "The Goldbergs," Loeb worked in
the theater. He appeared in "Time Out for Ginger" on Broadway,
and went on tour with the show. In Chicago, Edward damage* of
the American Legion campaigned against Loeb's appearance and
attempted to organize a boycott. But the incident did not develop
into a public controversy, and the play ran for ten months.

* damage, long a member of various American Legion anti-subversive commit-
tees, is the leading spokesman for his point of view in the Chicago area. During
recent years damage has organized campaigns against various theatrical people.
Of late, however, most of these campaigns have failed. "He overplayed his hand,"
one Chicago newspaperman said of him. "Nobody pays much attention to Ed
any more."

Yet Loeb never regained confidence in himself. He was bowed
down by family problems. He felt that he had been victimized by
those who set themselves up as guardians of the Republic. He grew
increasingly depressed and embittered. Finally, in September, 1955,
he went off to a hotel room and took an overdose of sleeping pills —
and in a few of the news stories about his suicide, there was some
mention of his blacklisting difficulties.

On November 13, 1951, Elmer Rice announced his resignation
from a group of playwrights who were doing shows for the "Celan-
ese Theater." "I now find," Rice wrote, "that the names of actors
selected by you [Stellar Enterprises, the packaging corporation] are
submitted for approval to the Ellington advertising agency, whose
client, the Celanese Corporation of America, is the commercial
sponsor of this program. The agency, it appears, then submits these
names to its attorney, Walter Socolow, for 'clearance' from the
point of view of what is euphemistically called 'public relations.'
What this means in effect is that Mr. Socolow conducts an inquiry
into the alleged political opinions and activities of the actors and
bases his acceptance or rejection upon his judgment of the pro-
priety of their political beliefs." Rice went on to claim that his resig-
nation was motivated by the fact that several actors had been
turned down, on political grounds, for the leading role in his play
"Counsellor at Law."

Rice concluded: "The air does not belong to the Ellington agency
nor to the Celanese Corporation nor to the networks. ... It is about
tune that this shocking situation be made clear to the American
people."

In the controversy that followed, specific facts hi Rice's charges
were vehemently denied. Yet no one questioned his basic descrip-
tion of the blacklisting process. In replying to Rice, Jesse T. Elling-
ton, president of the advertising agency, made an almost classic
statement of the industry's position. He held that he and his agency

had made every attempt to heed the playwright's demands in casting
— "We've tried to lean over backwards to live up to the best tradi-
tions of the theatre and to avoid any of that political thing hi casting
. . . But when you get somebody who may cause a lot of bad pub-
licity for your program, you do have to be a little careful. It's an
ordinary business safeguard."

This was to be the industry's rationale as political screening de-
veloped into an institution: first a reference to the traditions of the
theater (and, often enough, to those of America) , then a word about
"business safeguards." In almost every instance the safeguards were
the overriding considerations; the "political thing" became all-
important in casting.

Later that same year, in December, 1951, Elmer Rice expanded
on his comments in a letter written after the death of the well
known actress Mady Christians (whose last months were made mis-
erable by her inclusion in Red Channels). Rice wrote: "It's shock-
ing. It's gone beyond Red Channels. Everybody has a private list.
Anybody's career can be destroyed. Crass commercial cowardice
has become more important than standing up for the principles of
liberty. I'm hoping that various actors unions will start taking
definite stands."

The Authors League of America decided to look into the black-
listing situation after Rice spoke out. A committee made up of
Ruth Goetz, Laura Hobson and Rice himself was appointed to in-
vestigate the situation — but "only with respect to authors listed in
Red Channels." The committee sent out a questionnaire to the 51
writers who were listed; about 30 answered. Three mam lines of
questioning were pursued. Has Red Channels had an adverse effect
upon your employment? Does blacklisting exist? Are you willing
to testify before the Federal Communications Commission?

Almost all who answered were acutely aware of blacklisting;
some said they had not been personally affected. At a meeting of
the Authors League held after the investigation, novelist John

Hersey summed up the results by saying that the League had posi-
tive proof of blacklisting. But the most significant answer was this :
the majority of writers who stated they knew for sure that black-
listing was rife also declined to testify before the Federal Commu-
nications Commission. They gave as their reason the fact that they
could not afford that kind of publicity.

This, too, was an indication of what lay ahead. Because political
screening has been carried on behind the scenes, its opponents are
often afraid to participate in any public opposition. The dangers of
reprisal are too great.

It was impossible for those interested in supporting blacklisting
to let Rice's charges go unanswered. Counterattack replied al-
most immediately. The newsletter began by quoting Rice's state-
ment that blacklisting "is an ugly blot upon American life and an
ugly threat to American liberty. . . . why I'd be willing to use Paul
Robeson if there was a place for him in the show." In dealing with
Rice's charges, Counterattack made no effort to deny that a system
of political screening had been set up. Instead, the newsletter fol-
lowed a technique it had developed earlier — it questioned the
playwright's motives and tied him in with communism.

The Counterattack editors wrote:

Now let's look at Rice's record and see how well qualified he is to
judge what should or should not be done about Communists and
fronters. Here are some of the fronts Rice was member of, or whose
functions he backed, in the late Thirties and early Forties. [11 organiza-
tions were cited]. In more recent years, Rice has backed fronts like . . .
[four more] ... a few years ago he backed resolution to exclude
Communists from board of American Civil Liberties Union. But now
he still can't see anything wrong with hiring Paul Robeson or any other
Communist for a radio or tv show and paying such persons big money
which they would use to support Stalin's cause while Communists
slaughter American prisoners of war in Korea. The Communist line
press has gone all out in support of Rice. He is a hero, a martyr, a
defender of its phony brand of "freedom."

Counterattack's response was as typical as that of the advertising
agency. It could serve as a basic rationale for all groups and indi-
viduals who supported political screening. First, the fact that such
screening was carried out was not denied, although an argument
was centered around the use of the word "blacklist." Secondly, the
opponents of the system were checked for past political affiliations.
Thirdly, there was a statement about the use to which money paid
alleged Communist entertainers would be put. Finally, there was an
attempt to point out that opposition to blacklisting "helped the
Communists."

Counterattack continued this last line of argument in an issue a
few weeks later. Speaking of Mady Christian's death, the news-
letter wrote: "Playwright Elmer Rice, who is now a hero of CP
because he would use known Communists on radio and tv, paved
the way for a propaganda treatment of her death hi a letter to The
New York Times 'Drama Mailbag.' "

In February, 1952, Rice was reconciled with the Celanese
Theater. The Ellington agency stated it agreed with him about op-
posing the blacklisting trend, that it had not used lists in the past,
and had no intention of using them in the future. Rice felt he had
scored a victory and Counterattack glumly agreed with him.

In the February 29 issue of the newsletter, there was an article
beginning "What Do You Think of These Celanese Stars?" Two
allegedly pro-Communist performers were listed. Counterattack
concluded:

What do the directors of the Celanese Corporation of America think
of this and what do they intend to do about it? Are they willing part-
ners to Rice's statement that he would feature and thus give their
stockholders' money to an identified Communist? This is a matter of
personal responsibility that they cannot evade. They should take a
public stand on it.

In the long run, the Rice incident had no lasting impact. But it
did point up the existence of blacklisting. Whether or not Rice's

charges were accurate in every detail, they provided a good
picture of how blacklisting was actually used in the casting of
radio and tv shows. And the reply of the Ellington agency — "but
when you get somebody who may cause a lot of bad publicity for
your program you have to be careful" — amounts to an admission
of the basic charges Elmer Rice made.

By 1952, blacklisting was generally accepted in the industry. The
frantic days of the Sweets case, the headlines of the Muir affair, the
editorials written about Ireene Wicker were a thing of the past.
The industry's solution to the problem was firmly institutionalized:
don't hire controversial performers and you won't have to fire them.

Worst of all, the operation was carried out, for the most part,
by people who were personally and privately opposed to it.

One of the most controversial questions in radio-tv has centered
around the blacklisting of anti-Communists. When Merle Miller's
The Judges and the Judged appeared in 1952, under the sponsor-
ship of the American Civil Liberties Union, the report was attacked
in the pages of The New Leader by Merlyn S. Pitzele, then an
ACLU director. Pitzele charged, among other things, that Miller
had ignored sources of information on the subject of blacklisting of
anti-Communists (in particular, that he had not consulted with
Morton Wishengrad, a knowledgeable radio writer), and that he
had treated the whole question hi a brief, off-hand way which dis-
torted the relationship between the two kinds of blacklisting.

Miller's conclusion had been that "there would seem to be very
little doubt that the Communist Party has been as active in radio
and television as in the rest of the entertainment field. There can be
no argument about the fact that, in the past at least, many small-1
liberals have cooperated with the Party, possibly even to the extent
of discriminating against the Party's enemies when it came to jobs.
It is certain that in some circles it has been as costly to have been
a premature anti-Communist as it was in others to have been pre-
42

maturely anti-fascist." Further, Miller had stated that ". . . not a
single instance of such proof [of the blacklisting of anti-Commu-
nists] was uncovered."

A special committee of the ACLU Board reported that Miller had
unintentionally failed to follow up certain sources of information,
and that the "author should have been less dogmatic" in asserting
that there was no single instance of proof of the blacklisting of anti-
Communists. This report was later adopted by the full Board of
Directors of the Civil Liberties Union.

In 1951, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee heard testi-
mony on the infiltration of Communists into the radio industry. It
is important to note that the only testimony released to the public
fell into two categories : first, that of witnesses generally associated
with the far right whig in the industry; second, that of "unfriendly"
witnesses who invoked the Fifth Amendment. The testimony of
others who answered all questions but were identified with the
liberal or "left-wing" faction in the union was not made public. In
addition, one witness later stated in a letter to the Committee that
he had been promised his evidence would not be made public and
had been "led" in the course of questioning to use certain phrases
which gave a false impression of the meaning he intended to give.

During the course of these hearings, Ruth Adams Knight, a leader
of the "right- whig" faction in the Radio Writers Guild, testified on
the blacklisting of anti-Communists. Because of her long associa-
tion with the right wing within the writers union, and because hers
is one of the few public statements on the subject, Miss Knight's
remarks are worth study.

Miss KNIGHT: I think evidence will be submitted to you that there
are important shows, both in radio and television, where it is quite
impossible for anyone who is not a left-winger to obtain a hearing and
to work and to write . . .

SENATOR WATKINS: You must have in mind something, and can you
make a general reference to it without going into too much detail . . .

Miss KNIGHT: I can back it up with many illustrations, but I would
have to say what I am reporting to you is a general impression of the
industry and there is no way of my being able to come here and say to
you that a certain director refused to buy shows from certain people
who were right-wing because they were right-wing, and he can say
he didn't buy them because they weren't good scripts, and there is no
possible proof.

SENATOR WATKINS: That is the thing we are up against, you see ...
But we must have something more than just a lot of conclusions . . .
Miss KNIGHT: What I can say to you is this, that in the industry, it is
generally conceded that there are certain shows on which only extreme
left-wing writers can work.
SENATOR WATKINS: Can you name those shows?

Miss Knight went on to name several shows, and even one net-
work, which she alleged had at one time or another discriminated
against anti-Communists. In this part of her testimony, however,
she indicated that she was talking about the employability of mem-
bers of "We, the Undersigned," the right-wing caucus in the
Writers Guild.

Miss Knight's testimony is quoted mainly to establish the diffi-
culty which any investigator encounters in trying to find "concrete
instances" of the blacklisting of anti-Communists. In general, it is
true that "there is no way of ... being able to ... say ... that a
certain director refused to buy shows from certain people who were
right-wing because they were right-wing, and he can say he didn't
buy them because they weren't good scripts, and there is no possible
proof."

This analysis was recently corroborated by Paul Milton, a radio
writer and board member of AWARE, Inc. Milton pointed out that
there is no Red Channels in the case of blacklisting of anti-Com-
munists, i.e., no fixed point of reference which can be used as a
dividing line when considering the patterns of employment for
anti-Communists. The writer referred to by Merlyn Pitzele, Morton
Wishengrad, has made the same point.

At the very outset then, it must be understood that it is prac-
tically impossible to find specific, incontrovertible evidence of the
blacklisting of anti-Communists. This point is agreed upon by both
liberal and right-wing anti-Communists. The non-employment of
an anti-Communist may be due to factors other than his anti-
communism. For example, one actor often cited as the victim of a
Communist blacklist is also alleged to have become difficult to
work with precisely because of his political activities. Another
performer who is frequently cited as a victim was widely criticized
for encouraging racial stereotypes. There were protests against this
performer's appearances by a number of anti-bias groups. (Some
of these groups of course may have had communistic ties.)

There is no way to ascertain which factors were, or are, respon-
sible for the "unemployability" of these two performers. In the
case of alleged Communists and Communist sympathizers, how-
ever, there are definite lists, definite dates, etc. to provide a point of
reference. It would seem, then, that the charges made against
Merle Miller were somewhat unjust. The discrimination against
anti-Communists was of such an informal nature that it is prac-
tically impossible to cite specific instances which would not be
challenged by someone.

It can be established beyond question, though, that there was
never any network-wide or agency-wide blacklisting of anti-Com-
munists, even during the period when Communists were presumably
at the height of their power. Take, as an example, the television
appearances of Vinton Hay worth in 1949-50. Hay worth is gener-
ally accepted as a leading "anti-Communist" in the special sense in
which that word is used by Counterattack, AWARE, Inc., etc. (The
source of this information is the Ross Reports, a listing of talent
employed in television from 1949 to the present.)

On January 21, 1950, Hayworth appeared on "Hollywood Screen
Test," an ABC show. Interestingly enough, this same program
subsequently employed Selena Royle (on February 4, 1950) and

Mady Christians (February 11, 1950), both of whom are listed in
Red Channels. On March 20, 1950, Hay worth appeared on "Lights
Out," an NBC show, and on March 27, on "Silver Theatre," a
CBS show. In the Ross Reports' listings of employment from Sep-
tember, 1949 to April, 1950 (Ross Reports, May 7, 1950), Hay-
worth is one of the actors with the most frequent listings. In addi-
tion to the shows reported above, he appeared in "Lights Out"
(twice), the "Kraft Theatre," the "Philco Theatre," the "Silver
Theatre," "The Clock," the "Chevrolet Tele-Theatre," all between
the fall of 1949 and the summer of 1950.

When dealing with this period, it is interesting to note how politi-
cal lines cross and re-cross on various shows. Thus, Hayworth,
Mady Christians and Selena Royle were used by the same producer.
Conrad Nagel, a veteran anti-Communist, appeared on "The Silver
Theatre," but so did Marsha Hunt (who was named in Red Chan-
nels and was later blacklisted) .

It has been said that the Communists let certain anti-Communists
work as a "fig-leaf" to hide their activities. But it seems unlikely
that this explains Hayworth's pattern. Hayworth has long been one
of the most articulate spokesmen for a right-wing anti-Communist
point of view in the industry. The fact that he was constantly hired
at a time when the Communists were riding high would seem to
establish beyond question that no industry-wide, network-wide, or
agency-wide blacklisting of anti-Communists was then in existence.

To continue with Hayworth. It may well be true that he has lost
some employment in recent years. But in a sense this is a case of the
engineer's being hoist on his own petard. Hayworth's activities
within AWARE, Inc. have now made him a "controversial person-
ality." More than one anti-Communist producer has said that he
would not hire him because of this fact. They feel that Hayworth's
presence within a cast would cause trouble, be divisive, etc.

It seems possible to conclude, therefore, that the "blacklisting
of anti-Communists" did not proceed on any organized and institu-

tional basis. There was no Red Channels, no industry-wide deci-
sions, no open agitation for screening, no silent acceptance. It was
largely a back-scratching operation. This is in no way to imply
that there has been no discrimination against right-wing anti-
Communists.

In discovering individual patterns of the refusal to hire anti-
Communists, or at least anti-Communists of the right-wing persua-
sion, one is confronted with an extremely complicated, if not con-
tradictory, situation. In her testimony, for example, Ruth Adams
Knight charged that "Studio One" would have "a possible one per-
son from a group like 'We the Undersigned' and almost everyone
else on the other side."

A check of the writers used on "Studio One" in the months im-
mediately before Ruth Adams Knight testified (April 28, 1951) is
revealing. There was, indeed, one writer, Irve Tunick, who was a
member of "We the Undersigned." In February, the show used
Lois Jacoby, a writer who was later to follow Tunick out of Tele-
vision Authority when a West Coast functionary of that organization
invoked the Fifth Amendment. The remaining writers (from Janu-
ary 1 to March 26) are not well known as supporters of any left-
wing faction. Indeed, the writer (and producer) whose work was
most consistently used on the show, Worthington Miner, had a repu-
tation for staying out of union disputes, industry politics, etc. On
January 16, 1950, "Studio One" used Butterfly McQueen, an ac-
tress often cited as the victim of an anti-Communist blacklist.

Thus, one of Ruth Adams Knight's specific cases would seem to
be questionable.

On the other hand, there are shows where the employment
record indicates a constant use of people associated with the left
wing. In 1950-51, "Danger" used performers like Lee Grant,
Morris Carnovsky, Alan Manson, Lou Polan, John Randolph, Elliot
Sullivan and others who have been accused of being antagonistic to
the right wing, as well as writer Peter Lyon. Other shows during

the same period used such people with suspicious frequency, e.g.,
"Suspense," "Comedy Theater." It is also true that the casting lists
of a show like "Danger" rarely reveal the names of persons who
have been members of the right-wing anti-Communist groups.

A study of casting lists, therefore, bears out the oft-repeated
charge that anti-Communists had difficulties in certain quarters.
The important thing distinguishing the left-wing blacklisting oper-
ation from the industry-wide steps taken later, is that the former
was sporadic, informal and unorganized.

Blacklisting: An Institution

ONCE BLACKLISTING WAS INSTITUTIONALIZED, it expanded. This
was an almost inevitable development. A highly placed executive
at one of the largest Madison Avenue agencies — a man charged
with screening the agency's employees — said not long ago that as
soon as the principle was established that performers and writers
should be checked for past political associations, the doors were
thrown wide open. Blacklisting soon went far beyond the names in
Red Channels. For if that book was accepted as a reliable source,
there was no reason why Counterattack itself, the American Le-
gion's Firing Line, the "listing" publications of Syracuse Post #41
of the Legion, and every other list, should not win acceptance.
This was made all the more complicated by the structure of the
radio-tv industry. In Hollywood, most hiring is concentrated in five
or six big studios. But in radio-tv, advertising agencies, networks,
program packagers and sponsors all have a voice in deciding who
is to be used. The result is a multiplicity of lists and procedures,
different policies on different networks, the creation of a secret and
labyrinthine world of political screening. Thus it has often hap-
pened that a television personality might be acceptable to agency
and network, but not to this or that sponsor. Such a one, in the
jargon that has grown up in the industry, is "greylisted." The "grey-
listed" of course are blacklisted, but not completely — for every
program on every network. Few persons are thoroughly blacklisted
in this sense.

All this began with Red Channels. When that book appeared
in 1950, columnist Ed Sullivan wrote:

With television going into its third big year, come this Fall, the
entire industry is becoming increasingly aware of the necessity to plug
all Commie propaganda loopholes. Network and station heads, with
a tremendous financial stake, want no part of Commies or pinkos.
Sponsors, sensitive in the extreme to blacklisting, want no part of
Commies or their sympathizers. Advertising agencies, held responsible
by sponsors for correct exercise of discretion in programming, want no
controversy of any kind. For that reason, "Red Channels" listing of
performers who, innocently or maliciously, are affiliated with Commie-
front organizations will be a reference book in preparing any program.

Sullivan was wrong in predicting that the use of Red Channels
would be general by the fall of 1950, but his over-all analysis was
quite correct, especially in the motives he assigned to the industry,
and his date for the complete triumph of political screening was
only a year off. By the fall of 1951, almost every word hi the
column had come true.

In May, 1954, Charles E. Martin, a radio-television producer
and director, appeared before Judge Irving Saypol's court as a
witness for the plaintiff in a suit brought by actor Joe Julian, a Red
Channels listee, against the American Business Consultants, pub-
lishers of the book.

Martin testified under oath about political screening in the indus-
try. At the very outset, he was asked by Arthur Garfield Hays,
Julian's lawyer: "Did you ever refuse to give Joe Julian a job as an
actor on any of your shows for the sole reason that his name ap-
peared in Red Channels?" Martin answered, "I did refuse to give
Mr. Julian employment on our shows because his name was in
Red Channels."

Later, Judge Saypol asked Martin: ". . . do you know that he
[Julian] is sympathetic to the cause of communism?" The producer
answered, "Not at all, not that I know of." Saypol continued: "Well
now, this Red Channels which seems to be the basis for your label-

ing him, says . . . that 'In screening personnel every safeguard
must be taken to protect innocents and genuine liberals from being
unjustly labeled.' Now is it your testimony that on the basis of his
inclusion hi the way in which it has been listed that you have under-
taken to label him as a Red, meaning Communist?"

Martin's answer went to the heart of the problem. "Well, I cer-
tainly do not mean to imply that I am accusing Mr. Julian of being
a Communist. But I maintain that everybody in the book has a
label attached to him, and that we — our clients — we are not inter-
ested in using the people who are hi the book."

Judge Saypol continued to probe. Why didn't Martin follow the
warning in Red Channels that "every safeguard must be taken to
protect innocents and genuine liberals from being unjustly labeled"?
This was particularly relevant because witnesses had already estab-
lished that Julian had appeared hi various anti-Communist shows.
Martin attempted to explain that he was acting under orders, but
this part of his testimony was ruled inadmissible on the grounds that
it involved hearsay. Nevertheless, his statements made it quite
clear that he had adopted a policy of not using, or of exercising
care in using, anyone named in Red Channels. Later, this was to
apply to anyone "listed" in a variety of publications.

In his subsequent testimony, Martin reinforced this general im-
pression. He told the court that "he [Julian] is in Red Channels;
he has a Red label." Judge Saypol asked, "Nothing else is respon-
sible for that label, as far as you are concerned, except the fact of
his inclusion in this publication?" and Martin told the judge that
he was right.

Finally, the nub of the difficulty was reached hi a colloquy be-
tween one of the American Business Consultants' lawyers and
Martin. "In other words, then, you do not agree with the statement
hi Red Channels, do you, that 'In screening personnel great care
should be taken that an injustice be not done to innocents and genu-
ine liberals'?" Martin answered, "I certainly do agree with the state-

ment in the book, but how can we apply this, this theory? It's im-
practicable. Because, I am not a court of law. We therefore take
the policy of quarantining a ship; it's preventive medicine. We
quarantine everybody in the book. We cannot take any chances."

Martin then extended his answer to "radio actors and actresses
and television actors and actresses who have been and who are
known to have been associated with Communist fronts." Here, the
policy of quarantine was extended beyond the bounds of Red
Channels and applied to anyone who had been cited as having a list
of associations with alleged Communist fronts.

Martin was accurately describing the policy of the entire industry.

This same point of view was stated by another industry spokes-
man, an attorney for one of the large packagers, in a letter written
to a talent union official. First the lawyer differentiated between
the meanings of the word "blacklist," maintaining that the term
properly applied to a conspiracy in restraint of employment and
that his client's practice simply amounted to an exercise of volition
in hiring. But in the next paragraph he admitted that his client,
because of the pressure of sponsors and advertising agencies, would
not hire any "controversial" person. Then he made an unusually
frank statement about the criteria employed by the industry.

He began by stating that ideology was not involved in hiring or
firing. Guilt or innocence of the charges against an actor was simply
not relevant. The only question was whether or not the person
would be acceptable to the community. The determination of guilt
or innocence, he maintained, would require a long trial in a court
of law. The program packager could only concern himself with
trying to anticipate public reaction. Therefore, the packager was
not interested in discovering whether or not a man was actually a
member of the organizations listed after his name, or whether par-
ticipation in those organizations indicated he was a Communist or
sympathetic to communism. It was enough that the charges had
been made.

This candid statement of policy cannot be attributed to the whole
industry. Many of the sponsors involved were concerned with es-
tablishing innocence or guilt. Their refusal to use a performer was
sincerely based on repugnance to communism or Communists. But
whatever the theoretical explanation, the lawyer's letter accurately
described the operating practice of the industry. The employment
criteria which developed out of Red Channels and similar listings
were based on anticipating public reaction. And this is what hung
heavy on the consciences of people in the industry. Opposed as
they were to blacklisting, they were now required to use it against
individuals they knew to be innocent of Communist sympathies.

The disclaimer in Red Channels calling for "safeguards" was
fairly meaningless. When political screening becomes secret, ex-
cesses are built into the system; they are not merely the result of
a faulty exercise of judgment on the part of those engaged in
screening.

If screening (or blacklisting) had been confined to the names in
Red Channels, it would have created a problem of considerable
though manageable proportions. But the accusations kept coming
and the lists lengthened as time went on. New charges were made
during 1950, '51 and '52. Dozens of performers not mentioned in
Red Channels found that they were "in trouble." By 1952 most of
the groups favoring blacklisting found that they had named just
about everyone vulnerable to attack. Still the attacks never let up.
As late as the spring of 1955 the J. Walter Thompson advertising
agency was harassed because of certain performers it had used on
its dramatic shows during the winter tv season.

The groups who make these continuing charges are almost always
aligned with the extreme right wing of American politics. Their
techniques are essentially the same as those employed in Red Chan-
nels—people are "listed," with the organizations they allegedly
joined, and some "citation" is given to show that these organizations

are, or at least were, tied in with communism. The "citations" are
often the findings of a legislative committee. But sometimes the
authority cited is the same as that making the accusation — thus
Red Channels cited Counterattack and Counterattack cites Red
Channels. Again, American Legion "lists" cite Counterattack as
an authority; Counterattack's Red Channels returns the compliment
by citing Legion publications.

A fairly typical example of the accusations these groups make
can be found hi a letter of the Veterans Action Committee of Syra-
cuse Super Markets. This group works closely with Syracuse Post
#41 of the American Legion and with Laurence A. Johnson, a
Syracuse supermarket owner who has been extremely active in pro-
moting political screening in the industry. The threat made in the
letter actually received its force from Johnson's control of several
supermarkets in Syracuse. The letter was addressed to Leonard A.
Block of the Block Drug Company, makers of Amm-i-dent.

DEAR SIR:

Is the [actor's name] who appeared on your "Danger" program
last night the Communist Fronter [actor's name] who appeared on the
Civil Rights Congress Show? See the attached photostat of the Com-
munist Paper, Daily Worker . . . For your information Civil Rights
Congress was cited as subversive and Communist by Attorney General
Tom Clark, letters to Loyalty Review Board, released December 4,
1947, and September 21, 1948, according to Guide to Subversive
Organizations and Publications, 82nd Congress, May 14, 1951.

Is the [actress' name] who also appeared on the same show the
same [actress' name] who was mentioned in ... Counterattack? We
quote from Counterattack:

"Communists Have Created A 'Living Memorial' For J. Edward
Bromberg. About 1500 people were jammed in a hall in the Hotel
Diplomat (N.Y. City) on night of Dec. 23. A thousand people
were turned away for lack of space . . . Other speakers at this
obviously Communist-inspired tribute to J. Edward Bromberg were:
[Actress' name] who is starred in current Paramount film [film's
name] . . . Miss [actress' name] has front record and last year was

featured in the Broadway flop . . . This was a Communist propa-
ganda play written by [writer's name], an identified CP member.
In spite of efforts of CP and its supporters to make a hit of this
play, it failed miserably."

If you plan to continue the use of Communist Front talent wouldn't
it be a good idea if you were to send a representative from the Block
Drug Company or Cecil & Presberey, Advertising Agency, since both
companies are aware the Communist Fronters are allowed in Amm-i-
dent advertising. Perhaps we could work out a questionnaire to be
given to the people who buy from our cosmetic displays. A ques-
tionnaire could be drafted reading, for instance, as follows:

Do You Want Any Part of Your Purchase Price of Amm-i-dent to
be Used to Hire Communist Fronters?

YES Q No Q

Indicate your choice by X in the appropriate box.
We are sending this letter to you by registered mail because our
earlier correspondence to you on May 28th evidently went astray since
no answer has been forthcoming.

Very truly yours,

VETERANS ACTION COMMITTEE

OF
SYRACUSE SUPER MARKETS

Pressure similar to this came from a number of sources and had
the effect of extending blacklisting. In 1951, the National Ameri-
canism Commission Sub-Committee on Subversive Activities of the
American Legion published a Summary of Trends and Develop-
ments Exposing the Communist Conspiracy. The conclusion of the
document clearly referred to the situation in radio and television:

Communism cannot be defeated by a lot of words and "pussy-
footing." It must be hit hard and often wherever and whenever it
exists. Feelings cannot be spared. If, in the course of battle, anyone is
unjustly hurt by unknowingly lending their name and financial aid to
an organization or cause that is subversive, it is very simple to with-
draw that support and to repudiate the organization.

As blacklisting developed, however, this "repudiation" was to
become quite complicated.

In an industry as sensitive to public opinion as radio-tv, it was
inevitable that charges of disloyalty would be effective, especially
when they were coupled with the threat of boycott. In the Novem-
ber, 1952, issue of Facts About Blacklist, a newsletter published
by a group of blacklisted writers, a letter from an Assistant Vice-
President of the Borden milk company was quoted in full. It was
written to Laurence A. Johnson, the Syracuse supermarket owner:

DEAR LARRY:

I want to tell you again how grateful I am for the time and help you
gave me on Tuesday. It is no exaggeration to say that my eyes have
been opened as a result of your cooperation. The same goes for Francis
Neuser and his group [Veterans Action Committee]. He mentioned
the fact that they are unpopular, but I know he isn't right. No one
could meet them without being impressed by the honesty and zeal with
which they are pursuing this fine course, and with their obvious deter-
mination to be fair.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ STUART PEABODY

Asst. Vice Pres.

Within a relatively short time, Johnson, and others engaged in
the same cause, had a number of such letters to testify to their suc-
cess. Johnson was particularly effective. He used the technique of
wiring or phoning executives and members of the board of directors
of companies which sponsored programs on which "controversial"
talent had been used. (In many cases of course these people were
"controversial" because Johnson and his friends, with their accusa-
tions, made them so.) As a result, the pressure came from the top
down and hit the agencies and packagers with considerable force.
Only a few companies were willing to risk a questionnaire like the
one suggested by the Veterans Action Committee of Syracuse Super
Markets.

Although many sponsors are sincerely motivated by opposition
to communism, the day-to-day working principle of political screen-
ing is based on anticipating public reaction. The controlling ques-

tion in "clearance," then, as far as the industry is concerned, is not
the establishing of innocence so much as the furnishing of proof
that the person involved has made his peace with the pressure
groups which threaten to stir up protests.

The case of one radio-tv writer shows the effects the system has
had. When Red Channels appeared in 1950, his name was among
those listed. Almost immediately he was informed by an agency
which had been buying his scripts that it was changing its policy,
would use only a limited number of writers in the future and no
longer needed his services. He continued to get some assignments
in radio and television after this, but more and more he found it
necessary to go outside the industry for work.

When the McCarran Committee report came out, his name ap-
peared again and he was dropped from the one show he was writing
for at that time. After this he did some work for radio — but he
could no longer use his own name. All regular commercial assign-
ments stopped and he was confined to staff work and anonymous
writing. However, even his income from the anonymous shows was
affected by publication of the McCarran report. By 1954, his
earnings from the ghost writing amounted to $2,000, a tremendous
drop from his pie-Red Channels income.

This writer's case is typical of the experience of those who did
not attempt to "clear" themselves. They were dismissed from cer-
tain shows almost immediately after Red Channels appeared. But
some work was available throughout 1950 and even into '51. By
that time, however, the screening machinery had begun to work
efficiently and the only employment open to them was writing under
a pen name or without credit. By 1954 even this was dangerous.
There were people inside the industry who favored political screen-
ing and watched the comings and goings of blacklisted writers. It
became difficult to keep "listed" persons on the payroll, even though
their work was never credited on the air.

An actor's story follows similar lines. Before Red Channels, he

had been blasted in Counterattack. His employers had showed some
concern but had not barred him from working. Even after Red
Channels, the actor managed to stay employed for over a year. Then
he could find no work. No one claimed it was because of his Red
Channels listing, though the actor was well aware that was it. The
policy of firing someone on grounds other than the political accusa-
tions made against him became routine once blacklisting was ac-
cepted as a regular operation. The industry is always concerned
over the possibility of law suits based on the charge of conspiracy;
therefore the "listings" in Red Channels, Counterattack or the news-
letters of the American Legion are never given as a reason for the
firing. And in conversations, industry representatives are ever care-
ful to indicate that they do not confer with each other about their
policy with regard to specific people. The fact remains however
that the "other reasons" for not hiring always develop immediately
after a political attack; if the person attacked succeeds in "clear-
ing" himself with the right people, the "other reasons" usually
disappear.

Blacklisting has always been uneven. The industry is united on
following a screening policy but standards vary. This is evident
in the fact that the actor just mentioned worked on shows which
went out over the very network that let him go. But in his case the
situation did not persist for long. In 1952 he was considered for
a part but before the show went on the air was told he would not be
needed. After that he found work on another network. Then
Counterattack hit him again and he was out of work once more.
After 1953 he could find no work and has been excluded from the
industry ever since.

The actor's experience suggests another aspect of blacklisting.
Different networks have different policies. So have sponsors and
agencies. As a result, an actor might be persona non grata in one
place and welcome in another.

The unevenness has led to mistakes. In 1950, in one of the
earliest, pre-Red Channels cases, Ed Sullivan had the dancer Paul
Draper on his show. Draper was already a controversial figure
as a result of the highly publicized law suit which he and Larry
Adler brought against Mrs. McCullough. The day after Draper
appeared in Sullivan's show, the New York Journal- American ran a
banner head: "Paul Draper in TV Show Draws Floods of Protests."
The next day, the newspaper reported that the New York State
Commanders of the Catholic War Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign
Wars, the New York State Adjutant of the American Legion, and
the Queens County Commander of the Catholic War Veterans had
protested. Shortly afterwards, Sullivan made a public apology.

A fairly prominent movie and stage actor was listed in Red Chan-
nels. At the time, he was out of the country and did not learn the
fact until he returned. He was charged among other things with
having been a member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, the Com-
munist military organization which fought for the Loyalists in the
Spanish Civil War. The source for the charge was a listing in
"Appendix IX." Later, this actor was to prove that "Appendix IX"
was wrong. He accounted for all his movements throughout the
entire period of the Spanish Civil War and proved conclusively that
he could not have served with the Brigade.

It took four years before he could establish this fact to the
satisfaction of the radio and television industry. After the listing
in 1950, he was able to work on television. But by 1951, his work
on television was cut off. At this time he received many calls asking
if he were available, but inevitably someone would phone back to
tell him it had been decided he was not "right" for the part. After
a while, he realized he had been blacklisted. At the urging of his
friends, he decided to try to "clear" himself. In the long process of
his "clearance," he met with some of the important figures in the
field.

In 1952, while the actor was trying to "clear" himself, the Ameri-
can Legion announced it was going to picket a play in which he was
appearing. He protested, citing his proof that he had never been
a member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. But this had no im-
mediate effect. Some time after this, the actor received a letter of
introduction to a leading Legion official. Influential people also
wrote to the Legion indicating their belief that the actor was not a
Communist and never had been. Eventually, he succeeded in con-
vincing the Legion he was innocent of the charges made against
him.

In late 1952, the actor was put in touch with George Sokolsky.
The actor is convinced that Sokolsky's role in this case, and in
others, was based on honest concern. The columnist was con-
vinced the charges would not stand up. As a result of their con-
versation, Sokolsky wrote a letter stating he felt the evidence against
the actor was weak. In this letter, the columnist repeated that he,
Sokolsky, could not "clear" anyone, people had to clear themselves.

The actor also met with Jack Wren, "security officer" at the
Batten, Barton, Durstine and Osborn advertising agency. It was
Wren who advised an affidavit accounting for all his movements
during the period of the Spanish Civil War. This step was neces-
sary, for the actor had to be "defensible" should protests come in
as a result of the original Red Channels listing. Once convinced
the actor had been wronged, Wren helped him get back to work,
writing letters for him, interceding in his behalf, and in general
attempting to establish his "employ ability." But Wren felt it was
necessary to lay a careful groundwork of refutation before the actor
could actually be used on any program.

In 1953, the actor got in touch with the House Committee on
Un-American Activities in order to clear up the original inaccurate
listing in "Appendix IX." His letter was acknowledged by Repre-
sentative Harold Velde, then chairman of the Committee, with a
note assuring him the statement would be filed in the records of

the Committee. But he did not succeed in getting any definite state-
ment from Velde or the Committee pointing out that the listing had
been in error. Throughout the "clearance" procedure, this fact was
to remain a block to his being reemployed.

By the end of 1953, the actor found he was still "unemployable,"
even though various highly placed people in radio, television and
Hollywood had absolved him of any sympathy for the Communist
Party. At this time, he was able to convince Roy Brewer, the Holly-
wood labor leader and key figure hi the Motion Picture Alliance for
the Preservation of American Ideals, of the soundness of his case.
Brewer wrote a letter indicating he was satisfied the performer was
not pro-Communist. The actor used the letter in an attempt to get
movie work but was told that the part he sought had already been
filled. (The reason given was probably true; a letter from Brewer
at that time was enough to clear performers in Hollywood.)

Finally, early in 1954, the actor was assigned to a television
show. Almost immediately, he was under attack from Syracuse.
The actor wrote a letter to the head of the Legion group in Syracuse,
telling him of the inaccuracy of the "Appendix IX" citation and
mentioning a highly placed Legionnaire who was convinced he was
innocent of pro-Communist sympathies. The letter went un-
answered. But when the actor began to appear regularly on various
television shows there were no further protests.

By 1955, the actor had almost regained the professional status
he held prior to Red Channels. The charges against him had been
rebutted. Powerful "anti-Communists" had written letters for him.
He had proved he was "defensible." As a result, he resumed normal
employment. Now that it is all over, he is grateful to Sokolsky,
Wren and Brewer for the help they gave him.

The actor's experience illustrates the "clearance" mechanism
which developed after blacklisting became institutionalized. To be-
gin with, it shows that the rhetorical claim that a performer must
"clear himself" is something less than a description of the reality.

Although he must "clear himself," it is also necessary for him to
convince various key people that his "clearance" is legitimate. By
and large, the persons this actor encountered are the ones who deal
with clearances: George Sokolsky, Jack Wren of BBD&O, the top
security officers at CBS, various American Legion figures. If this
group is convinced of a man's sincerity or, in the case of the execu-
tives, "defensibility," he can work.

But the process can be quite lengthy — four years in the case of
this particular actor. The actor believes that had he been a more
important star, his "clearance" would not have taken so long. A
public-relations staff might have been engaged to make him "de-
fensible." As it was, the procedure was a long and arduous one and
his career was gravely affected.

It is equally important to realize that, from this actor's point of
view, the various "clearance" men, like Sokolsky and Wren, were
actually trying to help him. He was not asked for money. Once
these men were convinced he had been unjustly "listed," they went
to some trouble to put him back to work. For many, though, the
politics of those with whom a blacklistee must deal remain a
stumbling block. The informal "clearance" board is largely right-
wing in its political orientation. If a performer has a strong preju-
dice against associating with Hearst columnists or American Legion
officials, or rejects their definition of "effective anti-communism,"
he will find it difficult if not impossible to "clear himself."

In 1951, the program directors at CBS became aware of the
problem. Actors they had previously used with great success would
be turned down even when they were obviously suitable for the
part. Soon an internal communications system was developed to
head off embarrassing incidents. Before this, actors would some-
times be called, or even sign a contract, then it would be found they
could not be used because of some "listing" or past political
association. By 1952, the CBS procedure was regularized.

Producers submitted the names of writers they wanted to use.
These were then submitted to the story department. Copies of
the memo also went to the executives charged at that time with
carrying out the network's screening policy — William Dozier (who
is generally credited with having initiated this procedure), Vice-
President Daniel O'Shea, or his assistant Alfred Berry. The final
word came from O'Shea or Berry. Written rejections of proposed
writers were never made. The producers would receive a phone
call and be told, "Sorry, we can't clear." When a producer asked
why a certain person had been rejected, he was told that it was
none of his business.

In one case, a director was signed for a show and actually used.
Subsequently, there were protests from Laurence Johnson in Syra-
cuse. Johnson had been told by Harvey Matusow that the director
was a Communist. Matusow claimed he had seen him at Party
meetings. Meetings were arranged between the sponsor, some
prominent "anti-Communists," including Sokolsky and Victor
Riesel of the Hearst papers, Matusow and the director in question.
As soon as he met the director face to face, Matusow admitted he
had named the wrong man. Nevertheless, it was impossible to
obtain a clear-cut retraction from those who published the charge.

A show became "tough" after a number of "mistakes" were made
and protests mounted. Political screening was more careful then,
and even those who could work on other shows for the same net-
work could not be used. "Danger" fell into this category, so did
"Justice." In the case of "Danger," a threat from the Veterans
Action Committee of Syracuse had been enough to convince every-
one that special precautions were necessary.

However, even when blacklisting is functioning well, a few peo-
ple still manage to work under assumed names. This is generally
only possible for writers, or for actors working on radio, since a
television appearance can easily be noted by someone in the audi-
ence. Still, one blacklisted actress managed to work on television

as the hands in a soap commercial until she was recognized enter-
ing the studio. But her case was an exception. Most blackmarket
work is done by writers.

In the early days of blacklisting, it was possible for a writer to
submit scripts under an assumed name. After a while, the system
was tightened up. It is now necessary for a writer to have a
"front" in order to continue working. The "front" must be a person
who can convincingly carry off the role of a writer. He attends all
conferences on the script which he is supposed to have written.
He has to be coached on how to react to suggestions, how to take
notes on the changes which the producer or director requests, etc.
If the "front" has some acting experience, so much the better.

Once the "front" is successful, a whole series of problems arises.
He receives public credit for shows written by another man. His
family and friends assume he is making a great deal of money. His
employer may question him about working on company time. When
the next deal comes up, the "front" often demands that his cut of
the check be raised to a point commensurate with his status as a
big-name television writer. Ego problems develop. The "front"
begins to act like a first-rate writing talent and resents the actual
writer.

In one case — now an industry legend — a "front" became so
successful he was hired as a script editor for some television shows.
Once in this position, he refused to use the work of the blacklisted
writers who had made his reputation, on the grounds that it would
endanger his position.

Another "front" received an offer to go to Hollywood to write
movies. A third became infuriated when his father called him and
said: "I saw your show last night. I'm glad to see that you're finally
becoming a writer after all these years of trying." As a result of the
emotional crisis engendered by this phone call, the "front" broke
off relations with the blacklisted writer.

Throughout the radio-tv industry, the fact that someone is "in
trouble" (the industry's euphemism for being blacklisted) has often
meant that high-priced talent could be bought at cut-rate prices.
The larger talent agencies refuse to handle blacklisted writers who
work through "fronts," but the smaller companies saw an oppor-
tunity to make a killing and have gone along. When this happens,
a part of the check for the show goes to the agency and if the
packager is aware of the arrangement, he too may demand a
kickback.

In one case, a "front" got so interested in improving his position
he accepted almost any terms from producers. Instead of demand-
ing reasonable working conditions (for example with regard to
deadlines) he began to agree to all offers. The pressure on the
blacklisted writer he was "fronting" for became so great that the
writer eventually had to break off the relationship. In still another
case, a producer offered to get a better "front" for a writer. The
man he suggested had been in the business long enough to build up
a personal reputation and his scripts were worth more. And finally,
there was a case in which the "front" himself became blacklisted
after he had achieved a certain ersatz prominence.

Because of all the problems involved in blackmarketing, "fronts"
do not last long. Perhaps the greatest single difficulty hi the rela-
tionship is the ego problem. "Fronts" are often frustrated and
unsuccessful writers themselves and the experience of receiving
credit for brilliantly written shows creates problems for them. In
a few cases, men have "fronted" on principle, as a means of oppos-
ing blacklisting. But these instances are relatively rare.

All these factors combine to make the blackmarket business an
insignificant part of radio and television production. It is a method
open only to the best of the blacklisted talent and is hazardous even
for them.

In one case, a blacklisted director was able to work. He would
go to the studio early in the morning with the regular director, check

all the camera angles, suggest changes in the script and the way in
which an actor should handle his lines. The whole operation was
finished by eight o'clock. It finally broke down when someone in-
side the industry became suspicious of the director who received
credit and accused him of working with a blacklisted person. After
this, collaboration between a blacklisted director and a regular
director became more or less impossible.

At times, radio-tv "security" standards seem to be relaxed some-
what. People who have been "unemployable" find work without
going through the formality of a "clearance." But then, some pres-
sure group starts a protest and the hiring offices resume their cau-
tion. Often, a step-by-step procedure is worked out to bring an
actor back to "full employ ability." First there is an appearance on
a show sponsored by an institutional advertiser which does not re-
quire criteria as strict as those used by consumer-goods sponsors.
If this appearance goes unnoticed, the actor may then attempt to
find a spot on a more difficult show, citing his experience with the
institutional advertiser to prove he is no longer "in trouble." If
all goes well there, the word gets around that he can be generally
used.

In the winter of 1955, there were persistent rumors that things
were letting up. Several actors and actresses who had not been used
for some time suddenly found work. But any anticipation that
blacklisting was coming to an end were premature. In April, 1955,
the Veterans Action Committee of Syracuse Super Markets started
to campaign against the Kraft Foods Company. The campaign
began with a letter addressed "To All Food Retailers, Wholesalers
and Patriotic Organizations," charging that the Kraft television show
had used two Communist fronters, and that this was part of a con-
tinuing policy of the company.

The Syracuse attack included the same kind of threat that had
been addressed to the Block Drug Company:

We invite you to follow the suggestion of John K. Dungey and
join the American Legion in making such a test and take a poll of the
customers as they buy Kraft products. For instance, a questionnaire
could be drafted reading, "Do you want any part of your money spent
for Kraft products, to help subsidize anyone who had directly or in-
directly contributed in any way toward helping the Communist Con-
spiracy in the United States? Indicate in the appropriate box YES or
NO."

As long as such pressure continues, there will probably be no
letup in blacklisting. The industry set its fundamental policy after
the Muir, Wicker and Loeb cases. It has, in effect, agreed to accept
a basic limitation upon its right to hire. While this policy is accepted
and the pressure continues, there is little chance that blacklisting
can be brought to an end.

The fact was reinforced when the House Committee on Un-
American Activities visited New York in August, 1955. The Com-
mittee conducted an investigation of Communist influence in the
theatre. The impact of the hearings, though far less effective than
any of the Hollywood probes, buttressed the idea that the enter-
tainment industry is heavily infiltrated by Communists.

This was the final outcome of the policy that had been adopted
by the radio-tv industry in the turbulent early days of blacklisting.
Blacklisting was institutionalized and the institution received power-
ful support within and without the industry. Every major network
had executives appointed to implement its screening policies. The
most important agencies assigned top-level executives to see that no
mistakes were made. There were professional consultants who for
a fee supplied dossiers on prospective performers and writers. And
all this machinery was working smoothly and largely behind closed
doors. Arrangements were verbal; very little was written down.
Great care was taken to avoid the charge of conspiracy. The in-
dustry, rejecting the word "blacklist," retreated to high semantic
grounds whenever the question came up. But no one denied that
certain persons could not work until they were "cleared" — and

that was what most people meant when they spoke of blacklisting.

Most of the executives at the networks, agencies and packagers
were deeply disturbed by the institution even while they were
creating it. Joseph H. Ream, a former CBS executive and predeces-
sor of Daniel O'Shea as "security officer" for that network, was a
typical example.

In 1950, CBS instituted a loyalty oath for all its employees. This
took place at the point of transition from public to secret black-
listing. The Council of the Authors League of America took a dim
view of the network's new policy and wrote a letter of protest to
Ream. Their exchange raised most of the relevant questions with
regard to political screening.

The Authors League Council wrote:

Our opinion is that the only valid defense of American democracy
will consist of a re-affirmation and a strengthening of its ideals and its
established processes. If the kind of personal liberties which are defined
in the first ten amendments of the Constitution are ever lost, the
democracy we wish to defend will have been lost. We recognize that in
times of stress in the past certain personal liberties have been curtailed.
We feel that in the present crisis, the issue of individual civil liberties
has become one of the central issues at conflict, and that no sacrifice in
those liberties should be permitted without the most careful scrutiny.

The letter then went on to consider the CBS loyalty oath and,
by implication, the entire system of political screening. The Council
wrote of the oath:

It establishes the principle that a writer's employment may depend
upon his politics. The Authors League has always taken the view that
a writer's employment should depend upon his writings. We fully
understand that under wartime conditions precautions have to be taken,
especially in the field of communications, against subversion and sabo-
tage, and that the move by CBS has been taken in the name of such
precautions. Nevertheless, we deplore the principle that the hiring or
firing of a writer should be decided by his politics, without recourse
to the proper channels for security against subversion already estab-
lished and now being extended by the United States Government. Your

technique goes outside and beyond those channels and arrogates to one
corporation a type of function which has traditionally belonged to the
Federal Government. Unless and until this power is delegated to cor-
porations in a legal and orderly manner, it seems to us improper for a
single corporation haphazardly to take it.

Ream answered for CBS: "In the first place, employment will
not depend on an individual's politics. We are not concerned with
that, but with loyalty." This distinction was basic to the industry's
case. It was founded on the notion that communism was totally a
conspiracy and not "political" at all. From this, it deduced the
right to handle Communists in certain ways which would not be
allowable if only political beliefs were at issue.

To the charge that the political screening system was a private
court without competence or mandate, Ream replied:

The answer lies in how intelligently and how fairly this program is
administered, and this obviously cannot be proved or disproved in
advance. Our record over the years in the field of controversial public
issues involving public opinion should provide substantial assurance to
you that fairness will be our touchstone.

The same point came up hi another form. The Authors League
had stated:

The CBS questionnaire is more likely to condemn the loyal unjustly
than to discover the disloyal. In days of hysteria like these, the mere
hint that a man has ever had communistic connections may damage
his earning power indefinitely. No safeguards against this happening
to those who are loyal have been announced by CBS. A fundamental
safeguard, it seems to us, would be a guarantee not to deprive a writer
of his job on any ground except incompetence, without a hearing.

Ream had replied:

Next, we necessarily have to evaluate the reported subversive con-
nections. I have indicated to our staff group that I am available to
discuss with any employee any questions which he may have. Also, in
cases where I may have questions, I intend to seek discussion with the
employee concerned.

Here again, the main point of defense was the promise that the
system would be engineered in a fair spirit and with honest ground
rules. But this failed to take into account a tremendously impor-
tant factor: the significance of the growth of the political screening
system was a shift in responsibility. The networks, agencies and
sponsors no longer trusted themselves to hire and fire. They turned
over their authority to outsiders. They grumbled against these out-
siders, they complained about them, they resented them, but they
never failed to try to placate them.

Clearly political screening became something it was never in-
tended to be by those who began it.

Newsmen and Commentators

THE FIRST RADIO NEWS ANALYSTS were foreign correspondents who
experimented with telling what Hitler's rallies looked like and re-
porting on what was being thought and said in Europe. As war
loomed, their attempts to put the headlines in a political context
won a tremendous response. News commentary as we know it to-
day came into existence in September, 1938, at the time of the
Czechoslovakian crisis. The man who more than any other was
responsible for inventing it was H. V. Kaltenborn. Americans
listened to Kaltenborn, to Edward R. Murrow and William L.
Shirer, and these men became known by voice and mannerism as
no reporters of the printed press had ever been known. They be-
came public personalities.*

The Columbia Broadcasting System has long led in the field of
news commentary. This was due originally to the secondary posi-
tion of that network. Before the war, CBS was overshadowed by
NBC, the original radio network, and looked to fields left largely
unexplored. Among these was news broadcasting. The chairman
of the CBS board, William S. Paley, was interested in news broad-
casting, and one of the network vice-presidents, Edward Klauber,
was a former editor of The New York Times. They set up a news
department which had policies comparable — but still not identical

* Of all radio-tv personalities, newsmen and commentators are in the best posi-
tion to "propagandize." Comparatively few of these men have been burdened
with the kind of charges found in Red Channels. But because of the special nature
of their work, it was thought best to deal with them separately.

— with those of the best newspapers. News was to be edited and
presented by the network itself; sponsors could buy news programs
but the broadcaster was to be a member of the CBS staff. Paley
had the idea of following the news with an analysis of the news,
which, like an editorial, would be clearly set off from the reports
of what was happening. The analyses were also the product of
the network staff and had specified limits.

According to a 1939 policy statement written by Klauber:

. . . What news analysts are entitled to do and should do is to
elucidate and illuminate the news out of common knowledge, or special
knowledge possessed by them or made available to them by this organi-
zation through its news sources. They should point out the facts on
both sides, show contradictions with the known record, and so on.
They should bear in mind that in a democracy it is important that
people not only should know but should understand, and it is the
analyst's function to help the listener to understand, to weigh, and to
judge, but not to do the judging for him.

The network's distinguished news chief, the late Paul White, felt
strongly about the distinction between the non-partisan analyst and
the omniscient commentator. White was largely responsible for
the character of the CBS operation.

The CBS policy was later taken up by NBC. The American
Broadcasting Company and the Mutual Broadcasting System have
worked along different lines. Their commentators are either frankly
partisan or hold to fairly well-defined viewpoints. ABC and MBS
commentators can speak as they please. These networks try to see
to it that the various major points of view are represented in their
corps of commentators. Thus on these two networks men of such
disparate outlook as Fulton Lewis and John W. Vandercook, or
George Sokolsky and Elmer Davis, can be heard. There is a prob-
lem here in that few Americans are sufficiently interested — or
durable — to listen to the balanced total of a network's com-
mentators; most tend to listen to the partisans who reinforce their

own convictions. But commentators of all major persuasions are
there for those who wish to hear them.

This method of handling the problem of partisanship supposedly
imposes on the networks responsibility to carry a balance of com-
mentators even if some are unsponsored. It does not obligate them
to keep individuals on the air. And it does not solve the problem
arising when a local station decides that it will carry only broad-
casters of one persuasion. (Most of the commentators on Mutual
and ABC are without national sponsorship. Local stations sell
them to local sponsors, if they can, and insert their own commer-
cial messages.)

The CBS-NBC system of non-partisan analysts working as part
of a network staff does prevent this kind of local partiality. The
emphasis is substantially the same whether a local station carries
only one, or the full schedule, of network analyses.

The Communications Act of 1934 expressly states that "Nothing
in this Act shall be understood or construed to give the Commis-
sion the power of censorship over the radio communications or
signals transmitted by any radio station . . ." However, in 1941,
the Federal Communications Commission had before it the case of
a broadcaster who had supported candidates for public office and
advocated public causes, and the Commission, in its famous May-
flower decision, ruled that "a truly free radio cannot be used to
advocate the causes of the licensee ... it cannot be devoted to
the support of principles he happens to regard most favorably. In
brief, the broadcaster cannot be an advocate."

In 1949 the Commission reviewed its policy on editorial opinion
and stated that while the "individual licensees of radio stations have
the responsibility for determining the specific program material
to be broadcast over their stations," nevertheless "the basic policy
of the Congress [is] that radio be maintained as a medium of free
speech for the general public as a whole rather than as an outlet for
the purely personal or private interests of the licensee. This requires

that licensees devote a reasonable percentage of their broadcasting
time to the discussion of public issues of interest in the community
served by their stations and that such programs be designed so that
the public has a reasonable opportunity to hear different opposing
positions . . . Such presentation may include the identified expres-
sion of the licensee's personal viewpoint as part of the more general
presentation of views or comments on the various issues ..."

The parallel which industry spokesmen draw between the free-
dom accorded newspapers and that which they believe broadcasting
should have is marked by one particular flaw: in the present condi-
tion of broadcasting, almost all individual stations have abdicated
to the four national networks any responsibility they might have to
initiate the discussion of international affairs. And this is true to a
lesser degree in the discussion of national politics. To say that sta-
tions should have a newspaper's freedom to editorialize on these
issues means — as things now stand — that the four networks should
editorialize.

The first great controversies about broadcast opinion took place
in the Thirties. There was the Father Coughlin affair: what had
begun as religious broadcasts changed into highly controversial
social and political speeches. Mutual requested the right to review
the Coughlin speeches before broadcast and Father Coughlin re-
fused, withdrew from Mutual and spoke over an ad hoc network.
The priest was ultimately silenced by his ecclesiastical superiors.

The Orson Welles Martian episode had nothing directly to do
with opinion but vividly demonstrated to both the industry and the
public the power of the broadcast word and so had a bearing on
subsequent discussion of the responsible use of the air. There were
arguments about whether Walter Winchell and Boake Carter —
popular, uninhibited and opinionated broadcasters — were worthy
of the public influence their network spots gave them. Gilbert
Seldes wrote in The Big Audience:

Among the ifs of history, one might consider seriously what would
have happened to Winchell and to America if he had been a reactionary
and an isolationist from 1939 to Pearl Harbor — if Pearl Harbor had
come. It is imaginable that a clamor against lend-lease and for appeas-
ing Japan might have brought a strong isolationist candidate into the
field instead of Wendell Willkie. It is conceivable that a radio broad-
caster with millions of believers, attracted to him originally because he
was entertaining, might have thrown the balance toward such a candi-
date. In the summer of 1941 a single vote in Congress prevented the
disbanding of American military training; in the fall of that year one
popular voice added to those already on the other side might have
turned the trick.

When war came, the American public was temporarily united on
the great political issues. The focus of attention was on the war
itself. Radio was performing brilliantly as a medium for straight
news. Its speed and immediacy made it unquestionably the most
important news medium for the public at large. The nation switched
on the radio to hear its fate.

In 1943 a skirmish over an issue of freedom of opinion cast
shadows of what was to come. Cecil Brown, the newsman who had
broadcast the sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse, re-
signed from CBS and charged he was being prevented from speak-
ing his mind. CBS said that Brown had violated the restrictions it
placed on the broadcasting of analysts' private opinions. At issue
was a broadcast Brown had made in which he said, in effect, that
the American people had lost interest in the war. Paul White,
Brown's chief at CBS, criticized the broadcast as "out and out
editorializing," and thus contrary to the network's policies. CBS
came under the fire of the Association of Radio News Analysts,
which charged it with gagging its analysts. John W. Vandercook,
speaking for the Association, asked if the CBS policy did not put
the judgment of public issues into the hands of "five of its execu-
tives who control the news policies of the corporation." The net-
work replied that what it was trying to do was keep all judgments

out of its analyses. White said that, ideally, "in the case of contro-
versial issues, the audience should be left with no impression as to
which side the analyst himself actually favors."

Gilbert Seldes, who worked at CBS at the time and was involved
in the controversy, says that the intention was rather to keep preju-
dice out of the analyses. White felt very strongly about the impar-
tiality principle; perhaps more strongly than the network chiefs. In
any event, after White left CBS the emphasis on "neutrality"
changed somewhat.

With the end of the war came an inevitable drop in the popularity
of news and commentary. And with the peace also came a splinter-
ing in the unity of American public opinion. The Soviet Union had
been highly praised during the war, American national policy had
been one of collaboration with Russia, there was a considerable
sympathy for the Russian people. All that changed quickly. In the
final months of the war there was also a vigorous national debate
over the future of Germany. The Morgenthau Plan, to take all
heavy industry out of Germany and make of the Reich a state with
an agricultural economy, was widely supported, as were proposals
for the revision of Germany's borders beyond what had been set in
the Versailles treaty. Then there was the question of Eastern Eu-
rope, supposedly liberated by the Red Army, actually being at-
tached by the Soviet Union.

An early postwar instance of a commentator's running afoul of
public controversy was centered on the German issue. In the last
months of the war, Dorothy Thompson was conducting a radio news
commentary for Mutual. In the spring of 1945 she wanted to go to
Europe and arranged an amicable cancellation of her radio con-
tract. The storm over the German issue broke soon after. Miss
Thompson had already opposed the Morgenthau Plan, the revision
of Germany's 1919 frontiers, the dismemberment of Germany and,
later, other provisions in the Potsdam Agreement. She was severely
criticized in the liberal press and her column was dropped by several

papers (by the New York Post after a front-page editorial denunci-
ation of her views) . In addition to the attacks in the press, she suf-
fered considerable word-of-mouth character assassination and im-
pugnment of her motives. After she returned to the United States
she was not asked to resume her broadcasts, and while she sus-
pected that her controversial stand on the German question was a
factor, she also felt that the public probably had enough of crisis
over the air and that news comment would suffer a drop hi popu-
larity. She did not attempt to get another program and has not
broadcast regularly since that time.*

Another postwar controversy involved commentator Upton
Close. Close was ultra-conservative in his views and had been a
forthright isolationist. After the war he made a celebrated attack
on Bishop Bernard J. Sheil. The Bishop had aroused the antago-
nism of many right-wingers, in and out of the Catholic Church, be-
cause of his public statements on social and political questions.
Close's attack on the prelate drew an equally celebrated and dra-
matic reply from the Bishop himself, on time provided by the
network. Open pressure from unions and left-wing and liberal
organizations, "approaching a boycott" according to Gilbert Seldes,
brought about Close's removal from Mutual. He turned to tran-
scription but was unsuccessful and left the air. He now publishes
a "nationalist" newsletter hi Florida.

William L. Shirer, author of Berlin Diary, had been one of the
first and most famous of radio news commentators. During and
after the war he did a series of news commentaries from New York
and Europe for CBS. In the spring of 1947 he resigned from the
network after a dispute. Shirer felt that the situation which brought
about his resignation was due in large part to the network's and

* After Miss Thompson's column was dropped by the Post, a liberal radio com-
mentator who was having somewhat similar difficulties with his network over other
issues offered to join in a protest that her exclusion from the Post was a suppres-
sion of free opinion. She replied that she wanted no protest; that the Post had no
Constitutional obligation to renew her contract and print her column.

especially the sponsor's displeasure with his political liberalism. The
network and sponsor denied this. At the time a CBS directive for-
bade the expression of personal opinion by its commentators, but
Shirer says it was not rigidly enforced. A few months later he began
a series of broadcasts over Mutual.

In 1954 Shirer published a novel which was taken by many to be
an autobiographical account of the affair and lent itself to the in-
terpretation that the network had dropped him because of the Com-
munist issue. Shirer says that the novel was not an autobiographical
account of his case and regrets it was so interpreted. His argument
with CBS, he says, had nothing to do with blacklists or charges of
pro-communism .

Another commentator who left the air for some time after the
war was John W. Vandercook. He resigned from NBC after a dis-
pute with the network (not his sponsor), in which, he feels, the fact
that he was a New Deal Democrat, while his superior in the news
organization was a conservative, was a factor but not the only fac-
tor. There was no question of blacklisting.

Still another was Raymond Swing. Swing says that his leaving
the air (ABC) at this time was a consequence of ill health and had
nothing whatever to do with political issues.

Johannes Steel was a left-wing commentator who had broadcast
over Mutual during the war not as a member of the network's news
staff but as an independent commentator on time purchased spe-
cifically for him. After the war he temporarily went off the air and
in early 1947 a dinner was held for him, organized by Dorothy
Parker, from which grew the organization called The Voice of
Freedom Committee.

The Voice of Freedom Committee characterized as "censorship"
the fact that Shirer, Robert St. John, Vandercook, Steel and others
had left the air. The group organized a system of "monitors" who
listened to specific programs and commentators and each week
wrote to the program in criticism or praise. "In emergency cases,"

one of its pamphlets said, "whole divisions of monitors are alerted
and called into militant action by VOF and the offending station
may be swamped with indignant letters, phone calls and telegrams."
It claimed to have 3,000 such monitors. In cities outside New York
its members would go to stations in delegations to protest "reaction-
ary propaganda."

In May of 1947 William Shirer, who had left CBS but had not
begun broadcasting for Mutual, was asked to appear at a VOF
meeting in New York to discuss the reason for his departure from
CBS. He was told that Edward R. Murrow, representing CBS, and
a Federal Communications Commissioner would appear to discuss
the issues of the controversy. Murrow did not show up. The FCC
commissioner, Clifford J. Durr, did appear. Shirer says that after
attending this and one more Voice of Freedom affair, he came to
feel that he was being exploited. The Committee's political sympa-
thies were certainly not his own. Thereafter he avoided the group.

When John W. Vandercook left NBC the Voice of Freedom
Committee approached him in an effort to enlist him in their cam-
paign. The commentator took an instant dislike to the political
complexion of the Committee. "I had to beat them off with sticks,"
he said in recalling the incident. Vandercook told the group that
he did not wish to pose as a martyr. "One of the divine rights of
democracy is NBC's right to fire me," he said.

The Voice of Freedom Committee made its special target Fulton
Lewis, Jr., the Mutual network's scrappy right-wing commentator.
Lewis replied with a bitter attack on the Committee. The Com-
mittee without success tried to get equal time on Mutual to answer
him. The Committee claimed that it was successful in getting one
sponsor to drop Lewis. (Lewis says he has lost several sponsors as
a result of liberal and left-wing pressure groups.)

Lewis was not the only target of the Voice of Freedom. At the
beginning of the Korean war the group attacked Eric Sevareid,
Richard Harkness, Lowell Thomas, Gabriel Heatter, John Cameron

Swayze, Douglas Edwards, Richard Hottelet, CBS's correspondent
in Germany (the Committee compared him with Goebbels), Ed-
ward R. Murrow (whose remarks on the Korean war, according
to the Committee, were "a mouldy dish of red-baiting rhetoric"),
and a generous number of other commentators and reporters, both
conservative and liberal. The Committee's position on the Korean
affair was founded on the belief that North Korea had been attacked
by South Korea. After 1950, the Voice of Freedom Committee
faded away.

Of the ten radio newsmen listed in Red Channels, only Robert
St. John, William L. Shirer, and Howard K. Smith were network
commentators of national reputation.* Alexander Kendrick was
identified in the book as a writer and foreign correspondent and
subsequently has become well known as a London correspon-
dent for the Columbia Broadcasting System. The other radio news
commentators listed by Red Channels were Arthur Gaeth, William
S. Gailmor, Roderick B. Holmgren, Lisa Sergio, Johannes Steel
and J. Raymond Walsh.

Robert St. John has retired from broadcasting. He now lives in
Europe.

After leaving CBS in 1947, William Shirer broadcast for Mutual.
When Red Channels was published in 1950 he was in Europe gath-
ering material for a book. He recently stated: "Since Red Channels
was published I have never been regularly employed by a major
network. It was not a matter of low ratings, etc." One summer he
broadcast for the short-lived Liberty Broadcasting System, a base-
ball network which unsuccessfully tried to break into general pro-
gramming. On a few occasions he has appeared on NBC's "Today"
as a guest commentator.

Shirer feels he has been the victim of blacklisting. He regards

* Winston Burdett, CBS newsman who testified in the summer of 1955 that he
had once served briefly as a Soviet agent, was not listed.

his three citations in Red Channels — which did not accuse him of
being a Communist or directly of being a fellow-traveler — as arbi-
trary and misleading. Any implication they made of sympathy for
communism was directly contradictory to the views he had ex-
pressed in his books and in hundreds of broadcasts. Shirer feels
that, his own case aside, the executives of the major networks have
abdicated their responsibilities hi this matter to persons outside the
industry. "I think," he told a reporter not long ago, "that if the
major networks had taken a firm stand in the beginning, excluding
Communists and fascists from their staffs, but making a fair de-
termination of individual cases, this thing would never have gotten
off the ground. The network executives themselves are chiefly
responsible." In recent years Shirer has devoted himself to free-
lance writing and lecturing.

Howard K. Smith, chief of the European news staff of the Colum-
bia Broadcasting System, says of his listing in Red Channels: "I am
happy to say that I have suffered very little or not at all. I have
never seen the listing or what it said. It produced no effect on my
relations with CBS, nor had any public reaction that I have heard
of. I know that many people have suffered due to such attacks.
But somehow I was not scathed."

Alexander Kendrick made a similar statement:

As I recall, the citations in themselves were accurate. They were,
of course, made without any reference to any other activities or writing.
I suppose I am one of the fortunate few who suffered no adverse effects
as a result. The listing did not affect my relationship with CBS in any
way. Indeed, after the listing, I became a staff correspondent although
previously, when the black book came out, I had been only a local
correspondent in Vienna. Whether there were any letters to the net-
work, I do not know. I suppose there must have been, and if so, CBS
must have ignored them. The point is, of course, that CBS News is
under the control and supervision of CBS and that sponsorship pressure
does not operate as it does in the entertainment phase of radio and
television. So far as I know, CBS News resisted successfully any such

pressure. The only CBS comment made to me about Red Channels
was from Edward R. Murrow, who said: "If you're in trouble, we're
all in trouble."

Arthur Gaeth could not be located for comment on his experi-
ence with Red Channels. He formerly broadcast over ABC for the
United Electrical Workers union.

William S. Gailmor, Roderick B. Holmgren and Lisa Sergio have
all been retired from broadcasting. Holmgren recently described
his case this way:

For the two years following the end of the war, I was "labor's own
commentator," sponsored by the Chicago Federation of Labor on the
federation's station, WCFL. I tried to be scrupulously careful to adhere
to policies on every issue about which I commented. I was fired in
September, 1947 — three years before publication of Red Channels.
When I pressed for the reason, I was told it was because I had "fol-
lowed a CIO line." Some time before that, I learned, quite by accident,
that the manager of the station was visited repeatedly by an agent or
agents for the FBI, who talked with him specifically about me. It goes
without saying that I never learned any details of these meetings.

In December of 1947, 1 went to work for the Chicago Typographical
Union, writing radio scripts for a series of nightly broadcasts in con-
nection with the strike against five Chicago dailies. Though the Typos
asked me to write, produce and emcee the broadcasts, the WCFL man-
ager refused to let me set foot inside the studios. I continued doing
these scripts about four months, and quit voluntarily to go to work for
the Progressive Party in the spring of 1948.

Some time during 1949 or early 1950, I did a series of news com-
mentaries for a new FM station in Chicago, WMOR. The broadcasts
were unsponsored, with the understanding that the station sales staff
would attempt to obtain a sponsor, using the live program itself as
"sample." I did two broadcasts about the Peoria Street race riots, in
which I identified names of several of those who started the violence.
A ... restaurant chain owner who held some stock in the station,
pressured the young veterans who were operating the station to suggest
that I leave the air. I did, remaining friends with the struggling young
station directors.

In effect, the loss of my job as commentator for WCFL ended my

radio career, since I was unable to secure another permanent job in that
field. It was for this reason that I turned, in 1949, to the labor move-
ment where I have been working in black-and-white editorial jobs since.
I suppose the word "progressive" would best characterize my politi-
cal position. The listing in Red Channels is accurate. I was publicity
chairman for the National Labor Conference for Peace. I did teach
classes in journalism at the ill-fated Abraham Lincoln School. I've
never been quite clear as to what the two citations proved.

The Red Channels listing, Holmgren feels, merely made it
"official" that the door was closed.

Holmgren is now an Associate Editor of the official organ of the
International Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, which is often cited
as a Communist-dominated union.

Johannes Steel had broadcast for what is now station WMGM
in New York City after he left the Mutual network. Counterattack
criticized his broadcasts, and there was pressure on him from var-
ious anti-Communist groups, Catholic groups in particular. Steel
believes that "the worst pressure group is the Roman Catholic
Church." At the end of 1948 or early in 1949 (he does not recall
exactly), he was dismissed by the station. He believes that his dis-
missal was a consequence of Catholic pressure on the owners of
the station but adds that all concerned would deny this. When Red
Channels was published, Steel had the distinction, such as it was, of
34 Communist-front citations, more than any other radio com-
mentator. At the time the listings appeared he was already off the
air. In 1950-51 he returned to broadcasting on New York's WLIB
on time he purchased himself. But he is again off the air and has,
he feels, been "driven off." He now characterizes his own political
position as "an Eisenhower Republican, formerly a Roosevelt
Democrat."

J. Raymond Walsh is a former director of Research and Educa-
tion for the CIO. In 1945 he went into radio. From that year until
1950 he broadcast for WMCA in New York. His sponsor was a

retail chain store. There was increasing pressure on the sponsor
during those five years, principally because of Mr. Walsh's views on
foreign policy and the China question. His broadcast sharply criti-
cizing Winston Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech at Fulton, Mis-
souri, brought on considerable protest. When Red Channels was
published, he says, the consumer pressure against his sponsor, "es-
pecially from Catholic groups," was so great that they had to drop
him, and as he was unsponsored he went off the air. "There is no
question but that Red Channels played a very important role in my
case," Walsh says. He characterizes his politics as independent,
pro-labor and pro-New Deal. "I am more radical than many liber-
als but not from any specifically Marxian position." He is now with
a private investment concern in New York.

Raymond Swing was not listed in Red Channels. But shortly
after its publication he was invited to debate the question of Com-
munist influence in radio with Theodore Kirkpatrick, of Counter-
attack, before the Radio Executives Club. Swing argued that the
Communist problem was a genuine one in radio but that the danger
was not only that commentators and entertainers were Communists
but that technical personnel and the executives themselves might be
Party members. He also argued that the responsibility for dealing
with the problem belonged with the networks themselves and ought
not to be turned over to an outside group which worked for profit.

Shortly after the debate, Swing was attacked in an issue of
Counterattack. To the best of his knowledge, this had no effect on
his career. He subsequently left the Liberty network to spend two
years as chief political commentator for the Voice of America and
now works on Edward R. Murrow's staff at CBS.

In March, 1954, Counterattack devoted an entire issue to Mur-
row, charging him with receiving an inordinate amount of praise
from the Communist press and criticizing his broadcasts on Big
Four talks, the Harry Dexter White case, Lieutenant Milo Radulo-
vich, and Senator McCarthy. The newsletter stated that Murrow

slanted his reporting and was guilty of "unsoundness on vital issues
concerning communism." The criticism of Murrow has often been
echoed in the American Mercury, the Brooklyn Tablet and other
right-wing publications. Murrow obviously has not been sub-
stantially harmed by the attacks and has remarked of unfriendly
mail and pressure campaigns, "I never worry about that stuff."

Red Channels and the other listings obviously cannot be blamed
for all the vicissitudes in the careers of the reputable commentators.
The Red Channels controversy took place at a time when television
was making its first inroads into the economic structure of radio.
The industry was in transition. News departments, stepchildren of
the industry, are easily affected by economic problems. In the case
of one well-known commentator, even observers sympathetic to his
politics suggest that it was not politics that lost him his job — it was
dullness.

One evaluation of the total effect which the "lists" have had on
the field of radio opinion itself is a consideration of what is on the
air today. ABC and NBC are surely no more conservative in their
news commentaries than they were before Red Channels was pub-
lished. NBC's broadcasts of news comment tend generally to be non-
partisan analyses. ABC continues to have a balance of representa-
tive points of view. The Mutual network's Washington news chief
has been quoted as saying that he is a "conservative working for a
conservative network."

This would seem to be an accurate description of the network's
general point of view in news comment. But Mutual's example does
not prove any industry trend. CBS can certainly be characterized
as more liberal in its news analyses than it was five or six years ago.
It no longer strives for the kind of broadcast where, as Paul White
urged, "the listener is left with no impression as to which side the
analyst himself actually favors." There are judgments made in CBS
analyses, and the tone is "internationalist" or "liberal" in so far as

such categorization is valid. But there are no crusades and opposing
arguments are honestly reported.

Yet there have been consequences from the events in which the
"lists" played a part which are more subtle. And this is perhaps
the major significance they have had. Edward P. Morgan, former
CBS news chief, now an ABC commentator in Washington, said
recently: "The lists, as well as the whole climate of opinion of the
past few years, put into the minds of even the best men something
which was not there before — a care about the words they used, an
instinct to cover themselves on controversial issues." He added:
"Commentators are hard to sell anyway. With a few notable excep-
tions, no commentator can be sold to a sponsor unless his opinions
coincide with business opinion — or at least don't clash with it."

Lawrence Spivak, one of the originators of NBC's "Meet the
Press," argues that by and large sponsors do not use commentators
to articulate a political position. "Advertisers are primarily inter-
ested in programs that attract an audience who will buy their prod-
ucts or services, or bring them good will. There may be exceptions
to this, possibly on a local level, but even there not many advertisers
will spend money just to sell their political ideas."

It is this problem of the general trend in opinion which has had
an inhibiting effect on commentators. The "lists" are simply one
aspect of a total situation which might be characterized as an in-
creased tendency among Americans to condemn rather than argue.
It is inevitable of course that passionate controversy will involve
undercurrents of rumor and vituperation. But in recent years the
undercurrents seem to have quickened.

Eric Sevareid, chief of the CBS Washington news staff, and some
of his colleagues did a few paid broadcasts for the Voice of America
in 1950. Sevareid personally made one short broadcast at the re-
quest of the Voice, which was trying to comply with the Smith-
Mundt Act requiring the services of "private enterprise." He and his
colleagues were then attacked in several anti-Communist "fact

sheets" as "paid propagandists" for the "pro-Communist" Acheson
State Department. Sevareid said recently: "This sort of thing, the
organized pressure and the vituperative letters and calls one some-
times gets, produce a feeling of depression or distress in a man. Any
fairly sensitive person cannot help but react."

Sevareid contends that a commentator ought in fairness to be
judged by his approach to events. "Some try to be fair, to be objec-
tive — in the sense of avoiding partisanship, not hi the sense of being
neutral. Some are tendentious." This, he feels, is the difference.
"Involved too is the special problem of the writer, an essentially
private problem which does not submit to formulae and which
rarely is understood, even by network executives, certainly not by
those who are organizing pressure campaigns to score points for
one side or the other."

Martin Agronsky of ABC is a "cooperatively" sponsored liberal
commentator who has been the target of heavy pressure in recent
years. "Even though I have experienced some heavy going at
tunes, I have been commercial. The network has backed me up.
That's all I ask." Agronsky says, however, that the problem in deal-
big with the various pressures which affect commentators is simply
that responsible people in the networks and stations frequently fail
to find out whether allegations against commentators are true or
not. A station manager may panic at an organized letter campaign.
Agronsky feels the networks must choose their commentators care-
fully, assuring themselves they have a responsible staff, and then
back them to the hilt.

Drew Pearson had some specific troubles. Senator McCarthy
made an attack against him on the Senate floor which caused the
commentator to lose his sponsor. Pearson feels that the McCarthy
attack also frightened off some prospective television sponsors. He
sued McCarthy for libel and has attempted to draw the Senator into
repeating the charges outside the Senate.

Elmer Davis of ABC says: "I don't doubt that plenty of people

have tried to get ABC to put me off the air, but apparently all their
letters go into the waste basket . . . These things naturally never had
any effect on what I say."

Chet Huntley, a West Coast television news analyst now broad-
casting from New York, became the object of attack in Los Angeles
for his forthright support of UNESCO, his criticism of Senator
McCarthy and various other right-wing causes. Huntley's sponsor,
a coffee firm, was threatened with a boycott. But liberal groups
rallied to Huntley's support, and the coffee company stood right
behind him. Their sales actually increased during the controversy
when Huntley's supporters urged their friends to buy the product.
The protesting group was not large enough to offset the effect on
sales.

A different type of controversy arose in 1954. Judge Dorothy
Kenyon, a prominent liberal, accepted an invitation to appear on a
panel discussion show with Godfrey P. Schmidt, entitled "Answers
for Americans," Mr. Schmidt is president of AWARE, Inc. Two days
later Judge Kenyon called the program office to inform the director
that she had discovered "Answers for Americans" to be a Facts
Forum show. She explained that she was a member of Americans
for Democratic Action and that the "national policy" of that or-
ganization "bars" its members from appearing on any Facts Forum
programs.

The case was referred by Facts Forum to the American Civil
Liberties Union as a "shocking case of blacklisting." But, after an
investigation, the ACLU found that "Miss Kenyon's action consisted
only of a decision by a person invited to be a participant not to take
part in a program after discovering that it was sponsored by an
organization opposed by her organization, the ADA."

"Clearance"

EVER SINCE BLACKLISTING in radio-tv began, "clearance" has been
possible. Dozens of persons who were at one time "unemployable"
have been put back to work, often after months and even years of
anguish-ridden idleness. Performers listed in Red Channels and
denounced furiously in Counterattack, the American Legion's Fir-
ing Line, the Brooklyn Tablet, the American Mercury and similar
publications have been found acceptable again. They have been
"cleared."

"Clearance" is never a lonely operation. The artist who "clears"
himself must do so to the satisfaction of those responsible for
blacklisting him in the first place. He must "clear" himself in such a
way as to assure potential employers that they are not going to run
into difficulty if they hire him. Sponsors must feel certain that those
who originally demanded he be blacklisted now consider him
"cleared."

A New York public-relations expert who has guided more than
a dozen once-blacklisted performers to the "right people," explained
his role this way:

"If a man is clean and finds his way to me the first thing I do is
examine his record. I look particularly to see if it includes charges
that he is a member of the Communist Party. I want to find out
if he is 'clearable.' Once I am convinced that he is not a Commu-
nist, or if he has been a Communist, has had a change of heart, I
ask him whether he has talked to the FBI. If he hasn't, I tell him
the first thing he must do is go to the FBI and tell them everything

he knows. I tell him to say to them, 'I am a patriotic citizen and I
want you to ask me any questions you have in mind.'

"Then I find out where he is being blacklisted — where it is he
can't get work, who in the industry is keeping him from working,
and who outside the industry has made him controversial. If, for
instance, I find it is the American Legion, I call one of the top
Legion officials and tell him this man has come to me for help and
says he is innocent. The official may say to me, "Why this guy has
47 li stings and I know people who say they don't believe him.' But
I say, 'I'm going to have him make a statement.' Then, when the
Legion guy gets the statement and has read it, I call and ask him
for a note saying he is satisfied by the statement. He will usually
say, 'I won't put anything in writing but if anyone is interested have
him call me.'

"Somewhere along the line I may find George Sokolsky is in-
volved. I go to him and tell him that the Legion official thinks this
boy is all right. If I can convince Sokolsky then I go to Victor
Riesel, Fred Woltman [New York World-Telegram and Sun staff
writer] or whoever else is involved. When I've gotten four 'affi-
davits' from key people like these, I go to Jack Wren at BBD&O
and to the 'security officer' at CBS.

"I wait a few days, then I telephone Wren. He may say to me,
'You're crazy. I know 15 things this guy hasn't explained.' I ask
him, 'What are they?' and he says, 'He didn't come clean.' So I send
for the guy. He comes in here and he moans and wails and beats
his head against the wall. 'I have searched my memory,' he will say.
'I have questioned my wife and my agent. There's not a thing they
can remember.'

"I call Wren back and he says, 'When your boy is ready to come
clean I'll talk to him.' In that case we've reached a dead end. My
boy has been cleared but he can't get a job. I know cases where
victims have sat around eight to ten months after 'clearance' before
they got work."

A second possibility, the "clearance" guide pointed out, is that
Wren will say, "I think you are right about this boy, but what do
you want from me? I can't hire him." In that case, the public-
relations man said, the victim has to find a friend who is casting a
television show and is willing to put him on the air to test his
"clearance." "If the attempt backfires and protests come in, the
guy is through."

"Last of all," the guide said, "there is the possibility that Wren
will pick up the phone and call a casting director or producer and
say, 'Why don't you give Bill a part hi the show?' " Once the black-
listed performer appears on a CBS television program, it is notice
to the industry and to all the producers that he can be used.

The public-relations expert concluded: "A guy who is in trouble,
even if he has a good case for himself , will stay dead unless he finds
someone like me who can lead him through the jungle of people who
have to be satisfied. He has to persuade these people one by one.
Usually he finds his way to a lawyer and that comes a cropper, or
he finds a public-relations man or press agent who doesn't have the
confidence of the 'clearance men,' and he's only wasting his time."

Without access to the chief "clearance men" (who are often the
same persons who make the damning indictment), the blacklisted
artist can get nowhere. These particular men are all-important.
They have the power to wound and the power to heal the wound.
They can hold off right-wing criticism, which in turn cuts off pres-
sure on sponsors or networks when a "controversial" artist is put
back to work. If the performer is well known he may need not
only their passive sufferance but active support to re-establish him-
self with that section of the public given to telephoning networks
and writing protest letters to sponsors. So it is fairly meaningless
to say that no one can clear a blacklisted artist but the artist himself.

What are the qualifications for a "clearance man"? His own anti-
Communist credentials should be recognized by the groups which

stimulate blacklisting. He must be acceptable not only to other
"clearance men" but to the networks' and advertising agencies'
"security officers." His word must mean something to persons like
Laurence A. Johnson, the powerful Syracuse grocer, who hold the
economic weapon which seemingly sends terror into the hearts of
network and agency executives. His "clearance" must stick with
right-wing editors, columnists and public speakers. It is especially
important that they stick with various Hearst columnists, the editors
of Counterattack, and the officers in charge of the American Le-
gion's anti-subversive committees. In some cases the "clearance
men" have sold their services as public-relations consultants and
speech writers to the artists going through "clearance." In other
cases "clearance" activities are based on disinterested service.

A blacklisted artist who wants to clear himself might see any one
of a fairly select group of men whose connections and influence
confer upon them the powers of absolution. Some are more influ-
ential than others, but all have "clearance" notches in their belt.

The most professional of all is Vincent Hartnett — professional
not in the sense that his word carries the most weight (actually the
leading "security officers" on Madison Avenue take a sniffy attitude
toward Hartnett) but that he makes a full-time occupation out of
what for others is merely a sideline.

Hartnett describes himself as a "talent consultant." This does not
mean that he passes on a singer's voice, a musician's ability or a
chorus girl's legs; it means that agencies and sponsors check with
him on the political backgrounds of people being considered for a
job. His fees are modest — $5 for a first report on an artist, $2 for
additional checking. Where thoroughgoing investigation seems
called for, the price may go as high as $20.

In an interview with Jack Gould, radio-tv editor for The New
York Times, Hartnett "emphasized that he did not accept money
from artists personally who might wish to avail themselves of his

advice in countering pro-Communist allegations." The interview
was reported in the Times, June 20, 1955. Two years earlier, when
a well-known actress wanted to do just that, Hartnett wrote back
to her attorney that further research would be necessary in order to
insure a complete report, and to authenticate information. The fee
for such a complete report would be two hundred dollars. This
would include a thorough analysis of Miss X's left-wing connections
in the theatre, as well as listed affiliations with activities cited as
Communist-front. It would also include photographic copies of key
exhibits. If the actress really wished to correct her past mistakes, it
would be necessary for her to review her entire record — whether
obtained from Hartnett or from whatever source she wished.
Hartnett said there were a few other experts in this field, in addition
to himself, who would be able to make such an analysis, but he
imagined their fees would be the same as his, and in some cases a
bit higher. . . .

Hartnett was a pioneer. He wrote articles about "Red infiltra-
tion" of radio-tv and the theatre for the Catholic magazine, The
Sign, before Red Channels appeared. He has written on the same
subject for the American Mercury and the American Legion Maga-
zine. He takes credit for Red Channels (which he once described
as "no more than a primer on the subject, containing not a tenth of
the material in my files"). He is currently engaged in writing a big-
ger and better Red Channels to be called File 13, Volume 2. The
book, like File 13 (Volume 1) which he circulated a few years ago,
is intended for a special clientele and, so the rumors go on Madison
Avenue, will sell for several hundred dollars.

Hartnett may be the most widely criticized man in the radio-tv
industry, because he is frankly in the business of exposing people
with "front records" and then, later, of "clearing" them — or as
the Times writer delicately put it, "advising them on how to counter
pro-Communist allegations." But some of Hartnett's sharpest critics
are the well-paid "security officers" on Madison Avenue. Certainly

Hartnett has not grown rich on his profits, and he is a hard-working,
thoroughgoing researcher. He seems to have hundreds of facts in
his head and dozens of documents at his fingertips.

Hartnett has been aptly described as a "walking filing case."
Mention a performer's name and he will snap back with something
like this — "Oh, yes, he endorsed People's Radio Foundation, cited
in the American Legion Summary in November, 1949; signed a
letter put out by the American Committee for Indonesian Inde-
pendence — you can find that in a 1946 issue of the Indonesian Re-
view; sent a greeting to Mother Bloor on her 75th birthday — a
Birthday Souvenir Book was published; and, yes, he signed the
Open Letter for Closer Cooperation with the Soviet Union, re-
ported in Eugene Lyon's The Red Decade, page 249."

Hartnett believes fiercely in what he is doing. Even in ordinary
conversation he sounds like a Counterattack editorial. He hammers
away at the "Communist conspiracy" (never simply "communism"
or the "Communist Party"), the "CP transmission belt," the Party's
"coffers" (never its bank account) , etc. He distinguishes sharply be-
tween "liberals" and "anti-Communists." Questions about the civil-
liberties aspect of blacklisting he dismisses as so much anti-anti-
communism.

In April, 1951, Hartnett was called as the first witness to appear
before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee investigating
"Subversive Infiltration of Radio, Television and the Entertainment
Industry." He declared that between 1936 and '50 "the Actors
Equity Association appeared to be dominated by the pro-Commu-
nist faction." But the situation at the time he was testifying, he said,
was considerably improved. "However, it is still critical." Hartnett
proceeded then to cite the voluminous Communist records of two
radio writers. One he described as a "triple-threat man of the Com-
munist Party"; the other, a one-time president of the Radio Writers
Guild, he described as "the next important pro-Communist writer."

Hartnett received no public credit for his part in preparing Red

Channels, but he let it be known the idea was his and after the book
appeared he became a recognized authority on communism in the
radio-tv industry. He lectured frequently before veterans and
Catholic parish groups and was formally honored by the Catholic
War Veterans a few years ago. His fame has spread outside New
York. When a Hollywood actress tried to find out how she could
be cleared for radio-tv, Roy Brewer himself referred her to Hartnett.

Some of the general dislike for Hartnett in radio-tv circles can be
traced to the inquisitorial tone of his letters. He was criticized
openly during an AFTRA (American Federation of Television and
Radio Artists) meeting on this score. In the spring of 1955, Leslie
Barrett, a television actor, spoke in favor of the AFTRA resolution
to condemn AWARE, Inc. "There is disagreement," Barrett said,
"but few will speak out. Why? Because 'I've got a little list,' as the
saying goes, and if your name is listed, you do not work. Needless
to say the situation is deplorable. One is afraid to look at anyone,

to speak to anyone, to protest on the floor You come hi silently,

you leave silently."

Barrett — a shy man not in the habit of addressing union meet-
ings — was enthusiastically applauded by the radio-tv performers
for breaking the silence. Before he sat down, he read a letter he had
received from Hartnett a few weeks earlier. After receiving the
letter, the actor said, he experienced nothing but "grief and anxiety
... I can neither hold my food nor sleep."

The letter from Hartnett went this way:

In preparing a book on the Left Theater I came across certain infor-
mation regarding you. A photograph of the 1952 New York May Day
Parade shows you marching to the right of [Barrett deleted the name].
It is always possible that people who have in good faith supported
certain causes come to realize that their support was misplaced. There-
fore, I am writing you to ascertain if there has been any change in
your position. You are, of course, under no obligation to reply to this
letter. As a matter of fact, I am under no obligation to write to you.
However, my aim is to be scrupulously fair and to establish the facts.

If I do not hear from you, I must conclude that your marching in the
1952 May Day Parade is still an accurate index of your position and
sympathies . . .

Barrett's lawyer wrote to Hartnett and stated that the actor had
never marched in a May Day Parade in his life and had no Com-
munist leanings or sympathies whatsoever. Hartnett answered by
writing directly to Barrett:

To my surprise, I received today a letter . . . from Mr. Klein, a
lawyer ... I say I was surprised because I wrote my . . . letter to
you, not to Mr. Klein or any other member of your family ... I have
no way of establishing that Mr. Klein is authorized to speak for you . . .
Parenthetically, is Mr. Klein the same Mr. Klein who in 1939 resided

at , Brooklyn, New York and who is listed as having signed

the CP nominating petitions, New York State and/or New York City,
1939-40? Enclosed is a photograph of a group of marchers on the
New York May Day Parade. The gentleman at left center, underneath
red arrow marking, certainly looks to me like you. It is possible, I am
mistaken. There may be some other actor, unknown to me, in New
York, who closely resembles you . . .

Barrett's lawyer was not the Klein who signed the nominating
petition. Barrett was not the actor (if indeed it was an actor) who
was photographed at the May Day Parade. Hartnett was finally
satisfied on both these counts and wrote Barrett saying he hoped the
actor "incurred no expense by the unnecessary move of calling in
a lawyer. This only muddied the waters."

Other actors during the same whiter received letters from Hart-
nett demanding that they "explain" past political associations under
penalty of being "listed" in his book on the Left Theater. In some
cases the demands were backed up by a threat that if they did not
satisfy Hartnett that they had "changed their positions," he would
publish the "facts" — and this, he hinted strongly, would certainly
have an effect on their popularity and/or employability.

An actor who had appeared in a play put on at a rally honoring
several Soviet visitors during the very early postwar period received

one of these letters from Hartnett. Hartnett stated that if he did not
hear from the actor he could only presume he was still high in the
councils of the Communist Party. The actor, a man who never took
any interest in politics, was stunned. The half-forgotten perform-
ance Hartnett resurrected seemed entirely innocent at the time. The
Soviet visitors honored at the meeting were on a tour of the United
States sponsored by the State Department. The actor merely re-
peated a role he played in a radio drama during the war, and he
did so at the request of a radio producer.

This performer, who sought the advice of a lawyer, also incurred
some "unnecessary" expenses. The price he paid hi anxiety about
his future was something else again.

Hartnett's position on blacklisting is clear: he is for it. Like
many others, he balks at the word but accepts the fact. Not long
ago he stated his belief that "no provable Communist Party mem-
ber or provable collaborator of the Communist Party should work
on radio or television."

Several questions arise here: the question of Communist Party
membership is clear enough, but what is a "collaborator"? The
"proof" consists in the kind of citations found in Red Channels,
but "collaborator" remains a word open to several meanings. Is
signing a Communist-sponsored petition "collaboration"? It could
be clearly so, if that was the intention of the signer. But the whole
problem of a front is that it is a front and not the real thing; by its
very definition, non-Communists are drawn in. In the very begin-
ning Red Channels made no distinctions between willing collabo-
rators and "dupes" unwittingly brought into the Communist orbit.
It could make no such distinction without the ability to read the
human heart. The confusion is cleared up, according to Hartnett,
when the "dupe," ready to admit his "mistake," lends himself to
anti-Communist activity.

But Hartnett remains the judge of what is and is not "anti-Com-

munist." For instance, when a reporter asked him whether he would
accept participation in Americans for Democratic Action as an ex-
ample of anti-communism, he answered candidly no, he would not.
The ADA, he said, may be anti-Communist vis-a-vis world com-
munism but it is "soft on communism" at home; it is part and
parcel of the "world- wide collectivistic, socialistic movement." By
the same token, an erstwhile "dupe" trying to gain his credentials
as an anti-Communist could not afford to support the AFTRA
resolution to condemn AWARE, Inc., however much he may have
believed that such groups as AWARE hinder rather than help the
fight against Communism.

The point of course is not whether Hartnett's political opinions
are wrong or right. The point is that some of those who do not
honestly go along with them either have to conform or risk un-
employment.

The following is a statement Vincent Hartnett offered to the
author of this report:

It is initially noted that "blacklisting" in its traditional trade-union
sense refers to denial of employment because of union activities. In
this correct sense, there is no known "blacklisting" of talent in radio-tv.
By application, "blacklisting" has been recently used to convey denial
of employment because of subversive activities. It has also been used
to connote denial of employment by Communists or pro-Communists
to individuals who have actively opposed communism.

No real understanding of this question is possible unless one first
understands that since the 1930s there has been a "cold war" in show
business between the Communists and their allies on the one hand, and
active anti-Communists on the other hand. Communist literature is
replete with descriptions of Communist efforts to penetrate the theatre
(in its broad sense) and use "art as a weapon in the class struggle."
The conflict with the Communist forces in the theatre was first joined
in an important manner in Actors Equity Association. The conflict
spread to radio in an important manner in 1943. The Communists
stepped up their efforts in radio in 1946, following receipt of a directive

from the Soviet Union. (See my article, "They've Moved In on TV,"
American Legion Magazine, January 1953, pp. 26 ff.)

As a basic tactic, the Communist forces sought wherever possible
to give available jobs to party members or collaborators with the
Communists. Patronage has been of the essence of Communist suc-
cesses in the theatre. Those who had jobs to give did not need to be
Party members; they could be "sympathizers."

That such patronage was used seems a conclusion warranted from
an examination of the casting on certain TV shows. The old "T-Men
in Action" series (from its inception until late- 1952) habitually fea-
tured known Communists and individuals with significant Communist-
front records. So did the old "Big Story" series, which was also for-
merly on radio. (Cf. op. cit., p. 26.)

Complementary-wise, these series in the period noted featured few,
if any, active anti-Communists. It is not stated that the series deliber-
ately "blacklisted" active anti-Communists: by hiring a relatively very
high incidence of Communists and Communist-fronters, they achieved
the same effect.

In recent years, other TV series which have manifested a high
incidence of Communists and Communist-fronters, and a low incidence
of active anti-Communists, comparatively speaking, are "Danger,"
"Philco TV Playhouse," and "Omnibus" (a project of the Ford
Foundation).

There was probably nothing illegal in the effective "blacklisting" of
active anti-Communists on such series as the old "T-Men." By the
same token, there is nothing illegal in efforts to favor anti-Communists
on radio-TV. Such efforts have been dictated by the necessity of
resisting Communist efforts to penetrate radio-TV and use those media
for Party purposes. The war against Communist subversion is not just
five thousand miles away. It is more immediately right here in New
York.

The Syracuse Crusade

LAURENCE A. JOHNSON is A BUSINESSMAN of some prominence
around his home town of Syracuse, New York. He owns and oper-
ates four self-service grocery stores and is active in civic affairs.
His shrewd, colorful merchandising has won the admiration of other
store owners all over the United States. But to the "security offi-
cers" on Madison Avenue, Johnson is a good deal more than a suc-
cessful grocer. He is at once a nuisance and an asset, for he keeps
a watchful eye on their hiring practices and, in doing so, bears out
their common contention that blacklisting, however regrettable, is
economically necessary. "If we don't screen out controversial peo-
ple," as one executive put it, "we will be hurting the sales of the
product we are trying to sell. Therefore, not to screen would be
unbusinesslike and violate the trust of stockholders."

This "economic" argument was stated in its clearest form by
Paul M. Hahn, president of The American Tobacco Company,
makers of Lucky Strikes. Hahn wrote not long ago:

The company which I represent is a publicly owned commercial
corporation, engaged in the manufacture and marketing of trade-mark
consumer goods, which are offered for sale to the general public. It is
owned by some 85,000 shareholders. Its management is put into office
by the shareholders ... for the purpose of safeguarding and increasing
the value of their investments, of earning profits which can be paid to
the 85,000 owners in the form of dividends. To perform the respon-
sibility which has been entrusted to it, this management must strive to
maintain and improve the Company's business, which means main-
taining and increasing the sales of its products to the purchasing public.

100

When a company such as ours uses its corporate funds to sponsor a
program on television or radio, it does so with but one purpose — to
reach the largest possible number of the public as its audience, and to
present its products to that audience in the most favorable light . . .
since it is the function of an artist employed on such a program to
please rather than to displease, and since the successful promotion of
consumer products depends in large measure on the impression left
by sponsored entertainment, it follows that we would be wasting share-
holders' funds were we to employ artists or other persons who, under
company auspices, are likely to offend the public . . . We would dis-
approve of employing an artist whose conduct in any respect, "politi-
cal" or otherwise, has made him or is likely to make him distasteful
to the public.

Laurence A. Johnson, who takes action when a "controversial"
person does appear on radio-tv, uses economic threats to get his
way. In addition, much of his effort has gone into making obscure
and unknown performers "controversial." The Syracuse grocer,
therefore, not only lends credence to the "economic" argument for
blacklisting; generally speaking, he is the argument.

This is not to say that were there no Johnson there would be no
blacklisting. Far from it. Without him though the industry spokes-
men would be hard put to illustrate their dollars-and-cents case.
But everyone can see that when the grocer hi Syracuse objects to
how his suppliers use their advertising money, he does something
about it. He visits, phones, telegraphs or writes networks, adver-
tising-agency executives and sponsors themselves. He does not say
he will remove the products of the offending sponsor from the
shelves of his Syracuse stores, but he does threaten to hang a sign
over their product, pointing out that these manufacturers employ
"subversives." That is usually enough to get action. Moreover,
Johnson encourages other store owners to join hi the crusade and
urges shoppers to write letters threatening to withdraw patronage
if sponsors do not heed his judgment about radio-tv talent.

For all their influence, Johnson and his Syracuse supporters do

101

not command a wide popular following. For example, they cam-
paigned against Edward R. Murrow in one of their publications
(Spotlight) and urged readers to send protests to Murrow's spon-
sor, the Aluminum Company of America. But Alcoa, according
to Arthur P. Hall, vice-president, did not receive a single protesting
letter as a result of the Spotlight story.

Johnson is well known in the supermarket trade, and on many
matters his word counts for something. From the beginning, then,
a number of large corporations employing radio-tv talent cooper-
ated willingly, almost eagerly, with his crusade. From time to time
the grocer has released portions of his correspondence with busi-
ness executives who had only good words for his efforts to police
the air waves. For instance, a vice-president of Kraft Foods Com-
pany wrote him on September 8, 1952: "It is indeed heartening to
know that you are continuing your crusade ... I sincerely hope you
keep up the good work." On another occasion the President of the
General Ice Cream Corporation wrote: "I think it is wonderful
that you have taken this interest hi ferreting Communists out of our
entertainment industry. I wish there were more people like you."

Armed with letters like these, Johnson became a power on Madi-
son Avenue. Few if any of the advertising executives have faith
in his judgments. But with their most important clients in the
grocer's corner, even fewer are prepared to ignore him. As the legal
head of one agency put it: "He gets the sponsors worried. He puts
the heat on them. Then they put the heat on us. How much of
that can you stand?"

Johnson's crusade began in 1951. His influence grew rapidly.
And as he became more of a power, his demands increased accord-
ingly. In time, even some of the corporation executives who once
praised his efforts had all they could take. In a letter to a district
manager, one corporation executive with responsibility for an im-
portant television program, outlined some of the difficulties he had
in dealing with Johnson. The executive wrote:

102

Briefly, Mr. Johnson for several years has been taking it upon him-
self to put various pressures on food manufacturers, and others using
television, to force them to refrain from engaging certain individuals
accused by Mr. Johnson and his group in Syracuse of being identified
with the Communist movement. I believe it is obvious to you, as well
as to [our] customers that [our] company would not knowingly hire
a Communist, a subversive, or an objectionable character of any sort
. . . The only difference of opinion between Mr. Johnson and us is
that we are not willing to accept his accusations or statements as
sufficient reason for putting any individual on a blacklist . . . The facts
of the matter are that Mr. Johnson is desirous of our hiring certain
individuals whom he names, to tell us how to run our business —
individuals who, like himself, are fighting communism and Commu-
nistic talent in the theatrical world. He also has asked us from time
to time to hire certain talent, people active in this same crusade, but,
unfortunately, people with questionable talent, most of whom we can-
not use. On the other hand, he overlooks entirely the fact that we have
used some of his people on many occasions. It is apparent that Johnson
is not interested in our desire to work with him and cooperate — he and
his group want to dictate our policies . . .

Up and down Madison Avenue there are steady complaints about
Johnson's interference. But the industry has never tested the
grocer's power in any meaningful way. On the few occasions when
he has been challenged he appears to have come off second best.
Still, the chances of his power's being fully tested are not good. For
in Johnson, the Madison Avenue fraternity sees a germ of reality
worth a thousand opinion polls. The man from Syracuse saves the
industry from looking like a punch-drunk boxer who takes a swipe
at the air here and there, then staggers back from imagined blows.
With Johnson in the ring, the industry spokesmen do not have to feel
foolish when someone asks just how real the "economic" threat is.
That argument is based on pleasing "the public"; for purposes of de-
fending blacklisting, Johnson is the public. He can always be cited if
one asks what the industry is afraid of. In going straight to the spon-
sor, Johnson hits the exact nerve center. No sponsor wants his prod-

103

uct associated with "controversy." "All Johnson did," said one
network executive, "was to turn around a can of coffee and discover
that there, lo and behold, were Mr. Chase and Mr. Sanborn."

When Johnson began his personal crusade he already had a num-
ber of factors in his favor. His was a typical medium-sized business
in a typical medium-sized market. Yet he was close enough to New
York, and the home offices of his suppliers, their advertising agen-
cies, and the radio-television networks, to make his presence felt.
(Industry and sponsor executives and performers asking "clear-
ance" who have spent time and money on personal visits to Johnson
might be grateful that he was not rooted in the deep South or far
Northwest.) What is more, he was eminently respectable.

The Syracuse grocer's adventures on Madison Avenue began
when his son-in-law John Buchanan was re-called to serve with the
Marines in Korea. It was Johnson's daughter, Eleanor Buchanan,
who started the operation early in 1951. Her father helped mightily,
providing contacts, mimeographing equipment, money for mailings,
etc. Later he took the lead personally and made his famous sorties
into the big time of Hollywood and New York alone.

On June 12, 1951, Mrs. Buchanan sent a letter to American
Legion Post #41 in Syracuse. The letter indicated there had been
a meeting between Johnson, his daughter, an official of Post #41,
and other Legion members. In it, Mrs. Buchanan said she was
compiling material from Red Channels, Counterattack and news-
paper clippings: "Dad and I were pleased that you agree manu-
facturers can be persuaded to remove Communist sympathizers
from their advertising programs on radio and television. As you
gentlemen pointed out in our meeting last Friday, the task is too
great for me alone. I am grateful for your aid. . . ."

About the same time, Mrs. Buchanan sent a letter to Syracuse
housewives. It was addressed to "The Lady of the House" and
carried with it several pages of material quoted from Red Channels
and Counterattack and a copy of a Daily Worker story on a Madi-

104

son Square Garden rally against the Parnell Thomas Committee.
Then, on July 24, 1951, in a talk before the Syracuse Kiwanis club,
Mrs. Buchanan explained her position this way:

"My husband, a veteran of World War II, never received a
penny for being a member of the Inactive Reserves. When he was
recalled to service last October, it meant leaving the small town on
the Hudson where we'd been so happy. The company in which
he'd been found to be a valuable asset, my small but interesting
teaching position at Vassar College, all our plans for the future.
And I know that Jack detested military life. He's very unmilitary
about hanging up his clothes. But so many of our friends were
reservists, I just took it for granted. Only now, faced with the pros-
pect of being apart from one another, I asked him one day why on
earth he'd ever signed up in the Reserves. He answered quietly and
simply in one word. 'Patriotism.' '

A few sentences later, Mrs. Buchanan quoted from a letter from
her husband in Korea: "I have not been sick, which is a blessing
in this land of loose bowels and bodies. The flies go from the dead
Gook twenty feet away, to the fish heads he left behind, to my C
rations, so I'm glad my stomach is strong."

"Well," concluded Mrs. Buchanan, "my stomach isn't that
strong. It sickens me to know of those banquets engineered by Red
sympathizers on radio and television to raise funds for their hench-
men, and those do-nothing patriotic citizens who discuss the wrongs
of the world over a dinner table while my quiet, unassuming Jack
ate his lunch, surrounded by dead Chinese."

Mrs. Buchanan fired a crusade that reached out far beyond
Syracuse. She not only pleaded with the Kiwanis, the American
Legion, the Rotarians, the Advertising Club memhers, and house-
wives in Syracuse to follow her lead, she sent protest letters with
"documentation" to sponsors, including Philco, Kraft Foods, Bor-
den and Stopette, as well as to NBC and CBS. She issued a bulletin
listing a number of actors who, she said, should be given preferen-

105

tial treatment in casting offices. (Among the performers named on
this "white list" was Charlie McCarthy, Edgar Bergen's dummy.)

In September, 1951, Syracuse Post #41 of the American Legion
set up an Un-American Activities Committee and two months
later began circulating a newsletter which later became Spotlight.
Spotlight relies heavily on Counterattack, the Firing Line and
other "listing" publications for its "documentation." It supports
Senator McCarthy, runs articles by Vincent Hartnett, backs the
Bricker Amendment and crusades steadily against "Communists,
Left Wingers and One Worlders." In short, it merely adds another
voice to the right-wing chorus that thunders into the executive
suites on Madison Avenue.

Another Syracuse group was organized as the Veterans Action
Committee of Syracuse Super Markets. It, too, issued publications
backing up Johnson's demands. This group is headed by Francis W.
Neuser, a Johnson employee.

The Syracuse groups, while insisting that each is independent of
the other, act in concert. One large sponsor told about a typical
Johnson campaign. "At one o'clock I got a telegram signed by
Larry Johnson. At two o'clock a telegram arrived signed by the
Syracuse American Legion post. At three o'clock there was a wire
from the Veterans Action Committee of Syracuse Super Markets."

Johnson's campaign has been taken more seriously on Madison
Avenue than in Syracuse itself. More inches of newsprint have been
spent on him in New York City than in his own home town. Even
when Harvey Matusow testified that, at Johnson's behest, a Madison
Avenue agency paid him $150 for a phony "blacklist," the Syra-
cuse Post-Standard put the story on page six and in its headline
merely referred to Johnson as a "local man."

Johnson, of course, was one of the "sophisticated anti-Commu-
nists" taken in by Matusow. At one time he relied heavily on the
young "ex-Communist" for inside information. Matusow was anx-

106

ious to be hired as a "talent consultant" (in Vincent Hartnett's
phrase) to help screen radio-tv performers, and Johnson urged
more than one sponsor to take advantage of his services.

After Matusow confessed he had been a "false witness," Johnson
minimized the earlier friendship. But at least one corporation
executive was ungracious enough to remind the grocer that, by his
own standards, he himself was now tainted by a past "association."

At the time Johnson was relying on Matusow for information to
use against radio-tv performers, Matusow was employed by Count-
erattack. The grocer had no reason to believe that the young man
was anything other than what he said he was, a sincere, knowledge-
able anti-Communist. Certainly Johnson was not alone in putting
his trust in Matusow. But the agencies which accepted Matusow
as an "expert" did so mainly to please the grocer and convince him
that they were sincerely cooperating with his crusade.

In Syracuse, few were surprised that Harvey Matusow had fooled
Johnson. In his home town the crusader is regarded as a sincere
patriot but a man frequently carried away by his own zeal. "He is
a perfect front man for the sharpies in New York," one Syracuse
leader said. Few of Johnson's fellow townsmen can understand why
he is taken so seriously on Madison Avenue.

The first newsletter issued by the Un-American Activities Com-
mittee of Syracuse American Legion Post #41 reported that it
was organized originally when a phonograph record made by The
Weavers, then a popular quartet, was brought to the attention of
John Dungey, vice-commander of the Post. The Post passed a
resolution which in substance asked that all radio and television
stations, music stores and juke box distributors withdraw records
made by these entertainers. (Pete Seeger of the Weavers was listed
in Red Channels.)

Soon after that, representatives of the Syracuse University radio
and television centers and the six local stations met to discuss John-
son's anti-Red drive. They unanimously decided not to give hi to

107

the growing pressure. In the future, they agreed, they would not
listen to protests from Johnson which were not "adequately docu-
mented." ("By that," a participant at the meeting reported, "we did
not mean Counterattack.") They stated bluntly that they intended
to decide for themselves what was and was not "adequate" evidence.
After this decision was announced, local protests about records
played on the air came to an end. One Syracuse station executive,
recalling the incident, said recently: "I don't know what's the mat-
ter with those people in New York. Maybe they're so big they have
to be stupid."

Stupid is not quite the word for it. Rather, Laurence A. Johnson
represents something Madison Avenue might reasonably be ex-
pected to fear, and which to them, therefore, makes blacklisting, if
not worthwhile, then at least economically justifiable. For the lead-
ers of the radio-tv industry are anything but eager to test the
strength of Johnson's crusade. Neither, of course, are those who see
in the crusade a convenient instrument for manufacturing protests.
Spotlight lately has carried as a regular feature a column stemming
from the activities of AWARE, Inc. And on occasion, the "confes-
sions" of radio-tv personalities in process of "clearance" have ap-
peared in the newsletter's pages. This kind of thing makes John-
son look even more threatening. As he appears more fearsome,
there is more reason to fear him.

Here is the way one prominent producer and packager put it:

The hub as I know it is Johnson. There is a list in every agency
and even one in this office. But the master plan is held in Syracuse
because nowhere else is there so much activity.

These blacklisters are crackpots. This is the McCarthy group and
they get into this thing because it makes them feel good. It gives them
a chance to push people around, also to be wined and dined with big
business men they would otherwise never even meet. And they can
always bring the pressures to bear by reaching old widows on the
board of directors of stock companies. Big corporations scare easily.
They're afraid of publicity. One complaint is enough, you know. Even

108

program directors who haven't yet been attacked by Johnson are afraid
they might be. As far as the protest letters go, I've never seen even one
that wasn't inspired by these people.

But producers scare easily too. This one, after speaking so bit-
terly, said softly: "Publicly of course I have to take an on-the-fence
position. I can't make any statements."

109

"Take Their Word"

FOR THE AMERICAN LEGION POSTS which care to use it, the semi-
monthly Firing Line, published by the Legion's Commission on
Americanism, is a prime source of information. Its circulation,
estimated at about 4,000, is limited mainly to department and post
commanders of the Legion. But anyone can subscribe. As one
Madison Avenue "security officer" put it not long ago, Firing Line
is "one of the usual sources" to which networks and ad agencies
turn for guidance.

The Legion's newsletter is older than Counterattack. Before be-
coming the Firing Line it bore the less dramatic but perhaps more
accurate head: Summary of Trends and Developments Exposing
the Communist Conspiracy. Today it follows fairly close the stand-
ard form employed by Counterattack, Red Channels and Vincent
Hartnett's File 13. (J. B. Matthews provided the blacklisting
movement with most of its root information with his "Appendix IX,"
but credit must surely go to Hartnett for showing how to put that
information into tidy form, something like a job resume.) The
Firing Line's sub-billing — "Facts for Fighting Communism" — is
only a verb's toss from Counterattack's "Facts to Combat Commu-
nism," and it often happens that they are referring to the same facts.
The Firing Line is published out of the Legion's national head-
quarters in Indianapolis, but its policies are set in Washington by
Lee Pennington, assistant director of the Americanism Commis-
sion, and James F. O'Neil, director of Legion publications.

The blacklisted television performer who wants to be cleared

110

soon learns that here are two men he would be wise to cultivate.
As long as Firing Line remains "one of the usual sources," this
will be so.

Pennington had been with the FBI for 25 years when he took the
Legion post. Until 1940 he was a Bureau specialist in loose ac-
counting practices; then he became the FBI's liaison man with the
Legion. A week after leaving the FBI in 1953, he took over the
assignment as director of the Commission.

When Pennington speaks about "Americanism" he conjures up
a comfortable Norman Rockwell calendar image. The thornier
philosophic problems of democratic government (and this seems
true of many other guardians of "Americanism") seem not to
bother him. Pennington is proud of the Legion's Americanism
Commission. "We do a lot of positive things, too," he is at pain to
point out. The Commission, for instance, supports high-school
essay contests, target-rifle tournaments and traffic-safety programs.

Pennington's "sources" for the Firing Line are familiar docu-
ments: his shelves are stocked with the written records of the
Tenney (California), Broyles (Illinois) and Fish (New York)
Committee hearings on subversive activities. The voluminous rec-
ord of the House Committee's various hearings occupy the place of
honor. To this basic library must be added the Communists' own
record. Not long ago Pennington assigned one of his staff the
monotonous task of indexing every copy of the Daily Worker pub-
lished since 1940. Pennington says he is not permitted to look at
FBI files. As an evaluator of who is and is not open to suspicion,
he makes every effort not to let personal feelings influence his judg-
ments. "I was 25 years with the FBI; you had to restrain yourself.
It's hard to break an old dog of his habits."

One of the interesting aspects of the blacklisting picture is that
everyone in the business of "listing" thinks the other fellow occa-
sionally gets carried away. Pennington is no exception. His re-
straining influence is placed on the editorial staff of the Firing Line

111

in Indianapolis. "In order to evaluate," Pennington says, "we have
to get all the facts, we have to be very careful. Unless there is a
general pattern of continued affiliations with the Party, we won't
use it." But — "Usually, when someone is called to testify there is a
long record." And where there is a question of a letterhead?
"Mostly, I'll take the letterhead. If the man was not sympathetic
or did not have a long string of affiliations, he would not have been
asked to join in the first place."

The official litany is everywhere the same. "We don't clear any-
one; it is not up to us to be the judges. We only get the information
out to alert people." Moreover, Pennington "cordially dislikes" vigi-
lantism. "We tell people to report their information to the nearest
office of the FBI and make no attempt at evaluating it themselves.
They may have run across something valuable to a security case."
The American Legion posts are autonomous of course; if they
decide to picket, that's their business. But the national office dis-
courages public demonstrations. "I had a movie executive call me
up," Pennington told a reporter who was interested in his views,
"and the guy wanted me to come to New York to clear somebody.
I told him, 'I don't clear anybody; have him clear himself.' "

But the fact remains that Pennington, as keeper of the Firing
Line file, would have to know if the man actually had "cleared
himself" — and to whose satisfaction. The reporter reeled off the
familiar names, beginning with George Sokolsky. "They are all
pretty level-headed fellows," Pennington said. "I would take their
word for it."

It may safely be said that he does rely on their word as much as
they rely on his — "clearances" seldom begin with Lee Pennington
but somewhere along the line he has to come into the picture. Still
Pennington prides himself on making his own judgments and insists
firmly that he doesn't "clear" anyone. It is largely a question of
semantics.

James Francis O'Neil, director of Legion publications, has had a

112

long and distinguished career in the American Legion. He was an
outstanding National Commander and over a period of many years
served in various capacities with the Americanism Commission.
O'Neil, who has been in the forefront of many of the Legion's
"positive" activities, has testified before various Congressional hear-
ings as a Legion spokesman and been granted many honors.

The director of Legion publications — whose political views
rarely if ever vary from the public positions taken by the Legion —
came into the picture early. He passed on the letters which the
Hollywood producers sent to Legion headquarters in the early '50's.
On this assignment O'Neil worked with his friend George Sokolsky.
In the opinion of those who have followed the operation closely,
O'Neil does Sokolsky's bidding where "clearance" is concerned.
Like Pennington, he is inclined to take Sokolsky's word for it.

Like Sokolsky, O'Neil prefers that his role in "screening" movie,
radio and television talent remain his own business. When a re-
porter asked him about it, he answered: "I have seen a number of
people socially, but I see no reason why this should be anybody's
concern but mine." Sokolsky used almost the same words in answer
to the same enquiry. Like Sokolsky too, O'Neil said he would not
"mention individuals." Sokolsky felt that if he were to speak for the
record he would only be hurting people whose ordeal was behind
them.

O'Neil was willing to discuss the Legion's public and official
record. As far as he could recall, there was not much more to
the record than the formal condemnation of Charlie Chaplin and
the convention resolution which led up to J. B. Matthews' article
on Hollywood in the American Legion Magazine. He underscored
Pennington's point that since the posts and departments of the
Legion are autonomous, only the National Commander can speak
for the Legion as a whole.

O'Neil believes that nine out of every ten Americans are alert
to the menace of communism but only a small number understand

113

the intricacies of the conspiracy. This wisdom, he feels, falls to
"men who have devoted their lives to the fight."

It follows then that these men - Sokolsky and O'Neil among
them — are the proper judges of whether in fact an accused per-
former has actually "cleared himself."

114

Security on Madison Avenue

IN 1954 THE TOP 100 NATIONAL ADVERTISERS in the United States
spent some $848 million total in all media. Of this, 42 per cent
($359 million) went to buy radio and television time. In most
instances these purchases were made or influenced by one of the
leading New York advertising agencies. The top four agencies
(Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborn; Young & Rubicam; J. Walter
Thompson; McCann-Erickson) own or had surveillance over the
radio-television shows offering the lion's share of the most desirable
job opportunities.

The agency which looms largest in the minds and conversation
of radio-tv people in respect to blacklisting is BBD&O, particu-
larly in the person of one of its public-relations officials — Jack
Wren, the top "security officer" on Madison Avenue.

The reason for Wren's prominence is not easily apparent. To be
sure, BBD&O controls a number of choice jobs, but so do several
other leading agencies. Moreover, Young & Rubicam, through
the highly publicized Jean Muir and Phil Loeb cases, has been more
widely identified with blacklisting. Yet to the performer who wants
to be cleared for work, Wren's name buzzes through the industry
grapevine. He and BBD&O are mentioned more frequently than
any other individual or agency. The reason why is good matter
for speculation.

Jack Benny once portrayed a kind of Dick Tracy character
whose name or face others could not remember, even after they
had just spoken to him. Jack Wren is not quite that anonymous,

115

but he gives the impression he would like to be. For compared
to the popular image of the advertising-public relations man, Wren
is an anomaly. For one thing, he shares none of the affectations
commonly associated with the trade. His office is a small, plainly
furnished room tucked off in a corner. He has one phone and more
often than not answers it himself; yet he is prominently listed on
the ground floor directory of BBD&O executives.

Wren can well afford to represent himself to BBD&O clients as
the man running the tightest screening shop in the industry. Per-
formers and others who have talked to him in this connection
agree that he keeps on hand perhaps the most extensive and de-
tailed stock of information in the business. They also seem to think
that in his zeal to perform his duties, he has become involved per-
sonally in the politics of blacklisting.

There is some evidence to bear them out. Wren's private repu-
tation extends far in the field, farther perhaps than even BBD&O's.
Lawyers who have had occasion to attempt "clearance" of clients
consider Wren a power to conjure with. When the Hollywood-
Broadway actor Leif Erickson sought "clearance" not long ago, at
least one of the accounts he wrote of past political mistakes crossed
Wren's desk. Wren helped comedian Henry Morgan out of a
jam in 1952. Morgan was having trouble getting work because of
his Red Channels listing and gave a speech before a television
artists union meeting which helped exonerate him. Wren wrote the
speech. He also arranged for the World-Telegram and Sun's
Fred Woltman to write a feature story on the speech commending
Morgan for his courage.

Yet publicly Wren remains something of an enigma. He is an
expert at teaching others how to swim in the treacherous currents
of publicity but studiously avoids getting his own feet wet. One of
the rare occasions when his name cropped up in news accounts
came in February, 1955. He found himself dunked in the flow of
the day's news then by an irresponsible young man named Harvey

116

Matusow. The occasion was Matusow's appearance in New York's
Federal District Court. As an ex-Communist and paid government
witness, Matusow had been instrumental in getting 13 Communist
Party leaders convicted for Smith Act violations. Having under-
gone another change of heart, he wanted now, on a hearing over
petition for retrial, to retract his earlier testimony.

In the course of the hearing, Matusow swore he had once sold
a "list" to Lennen & Mitchell (now Lennen & Newell) . Later that
same year, Matusow testified, he helped Wren set up a similar
"list," in this case not for money but presumably as a public service.

Lennen & Mitchell came up from this dousing, sputtering de-
nials that it had ever used the list Matusow drew up. Wren was not
heard from for some days. Finally, for the benefit of the trade
weeklies, he pooh-poohed the testimony. But that of course ended
the matter only momentarily. Other preparations had to be made.

Wren appears to be one of the school of public-relations men
who approach their work in much the same way a mathematician
might tackle a problem in vector analysis. He begins by trying to
resolve as best as he can a number of pressures impinging on his
client, on the agency and on himself. To find some norm of action
he seeks out the balance of forces which will achieve the least
amount of friction in any given instance.

Normally, Wren achieves this balance by dealing not only with
the pillars of blacklisting but with others whose criticisms can
mean trouble. Those who might be hi a position to certify Wren's
intentions to minority groups or "liberals," and who themselves are
above suspicion (e.g. the Anti-Defamation League, or American
Civil Liberties Union, or Martin Gang, the West Coast lawyer),
can get a hearing for any person they think has been wronged. But
clearly Matusow's testimony threw the balance out of kilter. It
might have to be defended with the previously non-articulate or
unknowing.

Hence Wren did what he might have instructed any client to do.

117

For one thing, he got together a batch of letters certifying his fair-
ness in judging blacklist cases. For example, he solicited an actor,
a Red Channels listee, for a letter attesting that he had helped the
performer exonerate himself. The actor was then barred from CBS-
owned shows, but BBD&O had used him on General Electric
Theater. This, and other testimonial letters Wren collected, could
be used as defense against critical charges inspired by the Matusow
testimony. In addition to the people he has helped, Wren can also
send interested critics around to one or another of his acquaintances
in the civil-liberties field.

It is an axiom of the times, as Fortune's William H. Whyte, Jr.
put it, that if you "control communications, you control." Jack
Wren evidently has put in a good deal of tune trying to prove the
axiom out. He (and that means BBD&O) has more information to
weigh and balance in making judgments on casting lists than any
other Madison Avenue "security officer."

Is Wren the secret ingredient that makes BBD&O so prominent?
Partly. The agency itself however has never been notably shy
about tackling problems in "consent engineering." Where most
other agencies, consistent with the "non-controversy" standard, have
steered clear of politics, BBD&O has jumped right in. It is particu-
larly well known for its role in "merchandising" the Eisenhower
campaign in 1952.

Similarly, rather than sit loose and be buffeted around, BBD&O
has taken the blacklisting problem for what it is, i.e., a problem in
public relations, and has treated it accordingly. For unlike most
other agencies, BBD&O, through Wren, taps the lines of communi-
cations and takes part in "clearance" procedures. Wren, in short,
will see "listed" performers and hear them out. Few other agencies
will.

Typical of more general practice is the Big Agency (let us call
it), and its leading authority, a legal vice-president, whom we will

118

call Harry Law. By virtue of the size of his agency and his own
preoccupation with the problem, Law is equipped to give the
opinion of a general practitioner who has diagnosed a disease but,
unlike Wren, does not quite know what to do about it.

The Big Agency will not own up to keeping a "list." If called on,
though, it can check a casting list inside a half hour. Whatever it
checks against, Law says, is the product of newspaper clips and
"other sources." Law is concerned only with over-all policy, not
with operating details; he says he has never read through a copy of
Counterattack. Moreover, "We don't use outside investigators."

Harry Law's thesis is simple. Clients have to be "good citizens"
as well as businessmen. Some feel it worthwhile to consider the
validity of accusations but at the same time keep in mind their
responsibility not to use actual Communists on their programs. For
its part, the agency, as the "legal agent" of the client, has to be con-
cerned with "current acceptability." "Acceptability," Law says, has
to be determined by ear, by intuition based on what the client thinks
best and what the Big Agency thinks is best for the client and for
itself. "We would not," Harry Law says, "use Paul Robeson, of
course. By trying to avoid using the Paul Robesons we are helping
the fellow who may unjustly be accused."

But as Harry Law asks: "How do you establish 'clearance' for
someone unjustly accused?" Law does not care to get his hands
dirty in "clearance" procedures; the Big Agency will not tell the
controversial performer why he is not being used nor recite the
charges against him. Nor will it see the performer under any
auspices or circumstances.

"I'm a little suspicious of some of these operations," Law says,
"they're as close to blackmail as any operation I know that isn't."
Yet, once a performer is accused, he is dangerously "controversial"
and the agency has to think twice before using him.

Here in Mr. Law, then, is an unresolved problem. Wren, on the
other hand, has taken blacklisting about as far toward the end of

119

the line as he can go. By seeing "listed" performers, by trying
actively to "engineer consent" rather than to accept public opinion,
so to speak, Wren has created a unique niche for himself — and this
goes a long way toward explaining why he is considered a power on
Madison Avenue.

On the surface, it would appear that any procedure, even
Wren's, would be better than no procedure at all. BBD&O is a
powerful agency. It can afford to take criticism; in fact, it has to.
It has more clients, more publics and, in general, more interests
to balance. Moreover, BBD&O can put performers on shows spon-
sored by a couple of institutional clients which, compared to, say,
one of its tobacco or food company clients are not offended by
small critical slights.

Unfortunately for the performer though, it doesn't work out
that way. Wren cannot judge how valid the accusations against a
performer are; that is immaterial anyway. For Wren's efficiency,
understandably, is not meant to promote justice, except as it makes
good public relations.

Hence, it may be supposed, Wren's "clearances" — so far as the
word has any meaning — are few. For Wren does not control com-
munications, he merely has himself a better listening post. The
"wrongly accused" in his context are the same as they are in the
Big Agency's, i.e. the person who is "defensible." Standards vary
from personality to personality, from client to client. They depend
on the times, the current intensity of public feeling over the Com-
munist issue, etc.

The statutes for the little courthouse on Madison Avenue are the
words and deeds of several state and federal legislatures, the At-
torney General's department, and some supplementary laws that
show up from time to time on the baby blue stationery of AWARE,
Inc. The bills of particulars come in various shapes and sizes:
under the logotype of Counterattack or Firing Line, magazines like
the American Mercury, the neatly mimeographed pages of Vincent

120

Hartnett's File 13, the AWARE, Inc. bulletins and its nondescript
Who's Where.

Pleaders to the bar are few. For the most part they comprise rep-
resentatives of institutional pleaders like the Anti-Defamation
League and American Civil Liberties Union. Without auspices like
these, or those of Martin Gang, the performer has not much chance
of being heard anywhere.

Wren is not a judge in any usual sense. He knows that once the
defendant is accused, the accusation itself becomes an additional
factor in judging his competence as a performer — which on tele-
vision means a salesman. The defendant (or "victim" as he is
known in these circles) may lose jobs or, if he chooses to do his
penance with enough enthusiasm, may actually get more work than
he ever had before. By and large, though, if he appears before the
tribunal, he can expect not much more than "gradual re-employ-
ment." He may never be entirely successful, but the difference in
being "blacklisted," "greylisted," "bluelisted" or "whitelisted" is
considerable. *

* These are not to be taken as literal lists. Those who are totally "unemployable"
(comparatively few) are, in this context, "blacklisted." Those who can work for
one sponsor but not others, on radio but not television, at one network but not
another, are "greylisted." "Bluelisting" derives its name from the color of
AWARE, Inc.'s stationery. The "whitelisted" are of course eminently "employ-
able." Within the industry and in the press all degrees of "unemployability" are
generally described as "blacklisting."

121

"Clearance" at CBS

THE AUGUST 1, 1955 EDITION of The New York Times carried the
news that Daniel T. O'Shea, a vice-president of the Columbia
Broadcasting System, had been named president of RKO Radio
Pictures, Inc. The Times reporter covering O'Shea's career at
CBS was hard put to describe his exact job at the network. Mr.
O'Shea, the Times said, "served as a corporate vice-president and
general executive in a consultative and advisory capacity to all
[CBS] divisions." To speak more plainly, Mr. O'Shea had served
as chief "security officer" at the network between 1950 and '55.
In the rive years he was with CBS, O'Shea and another, lesser offi-
cial, a former FBI agent named Alfred Berry, became to the radio-tv
industry what Jack Wren is to advertising agencies.

Ironically, the role O'Shea and Berry played, at least in part, was
an unforeseen byproduct of the very policies which have enabled
CBS to keep up with, and in some respects overtake, its chief rival,
the National Broadcasting Company. As Fortune magazine once
told it, when in 1945 William S. Paley, chairman and principal
owner of CBS, returned from military service, he formulated his
strategy for a forthcoming battle with NBC.

"He had made two major decisions. The first was to concentrate
on 'creative programming' . . . Instead of being merely a pipeline
for the programs of others, CBS would become a programming
organization, originating and putting on its own shows . . . Deci-
sion No. 2 was to seize leadership in radio by getting control of the
talent."

122

The self -programming policy carried over into television. So did
the talent policy, only not in the form of Paley's celebrated postwar
radio talent raids. "While NBC drew on the great resources of
RCA to gain its position in broadcasting, CBS, having less re-
sources and having spent heavily to gain its position in radio, was
forced to counter in TV with the strategy of low-cost programming.
It worked hard to build a 'creative organization' that would substi-
tute cleverness and imagination for dollars. The most notable
example of CBS adroitness in this respect is 'I Love Lucy,' the hit
that cost only $38,000 to produce."

The policy worked. But, when the need to apply the "contro-
versy" standard in hiring arose, it also caused a major headache.
First, in packaging more shows of its own, CBS has to take more
responsibility for "clearing" material and talent. As the dispenser
as well as creator of radio-tv shows, the network is more vulnerable
to direct public criticism than an advertising agency.

Second, CBS, in foraging for all the "creative imagination" it
could lay its hands on, neglected, or could not afford to inquire
into, personal politics. Hence, as one executive put it: "We un-
knowingly hired a lot of questionable people."

When Red Channels appeared, CBS met the blacklisting prob-
lem by seeking to gain a solid reputation for patriotism with those
who were counted as "anti-Communist experts," while at the same
time it maintained its public reputation for "creative imagination"
via the network's news division. The network set up a department
to administer internal security but exempted its news division from
the stern "security" provisions operating in other departments.

The security problem was at first given to Joseph Ream, a CBS
executive, and Berry. Ream instituted a loyalty oath for all who
were employed by CBS to sign under pain of losing their jobs. The
oath remains the only one of its kind ever used in the industry. It
required that the employee certify he had not belonged to any of
the organizations listed as subversive by the Attorney General, or

123

if he had, that he provide a convincing "explanation" his member-
ship was not meaningful. The oath was kept sealed and confiden-
tial in CBS files.

The loyalty oath program however proved to be not quite
enough. There may even be some dispute as to whether it ever
amounted to more than a dubious public-relations gimmick. The
first case in which it was questioned involved a producer-director
named Danny Dare. Dare was among those named by Martin
Berkeley, Hollywood screenwriter, as Communists or one-time
Communists, before the House Committee on Un-American Activi-
ties. Like Berkeley himself, Dare denied the charge. He went to
Washington, testified that he had not been a Communist and was
kept on the employment rolls of CBS. Later, he asked for another
hearing, stating that his first testimony was not truthful. At this
second hearing, Dare told the Committee that after the people
Berkeley named were listed in the newspapers "I became panicky
. . . realizing that if I said 'Yes, that is true,' I would immediately
lose my job ..."

Similarly, Allan Sloane, a CBS writer who had signed the
loyalty oath, later testified that he had been for a short time a
member of the Communist Party but withheld this fact from the net-
work. Neither of these experiences sat well with network officials.

When Ream, an executive of long standing in the industry, re-
tired to Florida, his place was taken by Daniel T. O'Shea. A gradu-
ate of Holy Cross College and Harvard Law School, O'Shea had
served as chief counsel for RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., had been
vice-president of the Selznick International Pictures Company, and
was leading executive at Vanguard Films in Hollywood before
joining CBS in 1950.

Under O'Shea, CBS developed a vigorous screening policy. Like
BBD&O, the network seized on the realities of the moment and
made the best of them. O'Shea and his assistant, Berry, even more

124

than Jack Wren, made themselves available to anyone who wanted
to see them. Ordinarily, they did not seek out the blacklisted, but
any writer, director or actor who believed he was "not available" for
CBS shows and felt he had a case could go to them and get a hear-
ing. This policy has been the object of widespread criticism in
radio-tv circles. "Clearance" at CBS was from the beginning overt
and frank; hence O'Shea was an easy and obvious target for those
in the industry who despised blacklisting. CBS and blacklisting
have become almost synonymous. Sooner or later everyone hears
that CBS is the place to go to "get rid of a problem." But it is not
quite that easy.

Like Wren, O'Shea and Berry saw to it that they had adequate
information on hand and kept up their contacts with the "anti-
Communist experts." Berry took care of day-to-day details. O'Shea
set the over-all policy for the network and concerned himself only
with difficult or especially prominent cases, like that of Lucille Ball.*

Like Wren, O'Shea and Berry were most concerned over whether
or not they had a full accounting on which to base their judgment.
The purpose of the interviews was, first, to elicit as much informa-
tion as possible from the artist "in trouble," and, second, to de-
termine how full an accounting the artist was giving of his own past
activities. The "security officers" checked what they knew about
the artist against what he volunteered to tell them about himself.
That way they could judge whether he was holding back. If he was,
his sincerity was open to question. If the artist did not make a clean

* In 1953 Miss Ball, the top television star of the nation, suddenly became highly
controversial when newspapers all over the country carried stories that in the
mid-Thirties, Communist meetings had been held at her home, that she had signed
CP nominating petitions and had been listed as a member of the Communist
Party's Central Committee of California. Miss Ball appeared before the House
Un-American Activities Committee, told them of an eccentric grandfather and
satisfied the Committee that, as her husband put it, "There's nothing red about
Lucy but her hair and even that's not real." The public too was satisfied and the
"I Love Lucy" show continued to appear on CBS.

125

breast of all the information they already had, he was dismissed with
"It's been nice talking to you."

If he did come up with everything known and then some, indi-
cating sincerity, O'Shea or Berry took on the case. The first thing
that had to be decided was whether he was "defensible." He was
"defensible" if there was enough positive "anti-communism" in
his record to overshadow the charges made against him. In that
case he would be "cleared." But even if there weren't enough to
make him "defensible," the artist, after he finished the interview,
would have some idea of where he stood and what he could do
about getting out of "trouble." Here is where a good anti-Commu-
nist sponsor took over. The artist not yet "defensible" needed ad-
vice on what kind of "anti-Communist" acts would count with
the people who counted.

The standards set for CBS "clearance" procedures are neces-
sarily hard to fix. They depend largely on how the networks'
"security officers" read the intentions and opinions of the accusers,
be it the American Legion or AWARE, Inc. There are fluctuations
from show to show, from client to client, and from one day's inter-
national news to the next. "Omnibus," which does most of its own
casting, is exempt except where, in the word of one executive,
something "outlandish" is planned. So are most public-service
programs.

Yet CBS can't have it both ways. An example was provided
when Winston Burdett, a CBS newscaster, appeared before the
Senate Internal Subcommittee in the summer of 1955. Burdett tes-
tified that in the late Thirties he had belonged to the Brooklyn
Eagle unit of the Communist Party, had gone to Finland on the
Party's money and the Eagle's credentials, to do espionage work
there. Burdett went on to name a number of his associates in the
Party, some of whom were working newspapermen.

Then, with astoundingly precise timing, news broadcasts and
newspapers announced that Senator Eastland, the Committee's

126

chairman, had written a letter to CBS asking that the network keep
Burdett. The letter, which was addressed to O'Shea, plus a CBS
policy statement, followed hard upon Burdett's testimony. On the
face of it, both appeared to have been well-timed and well-coordi-
nated with Burdett's appearance in Washington. The coincidence
was striking enough to arouse public speculation as to how much
rehearsing preceded the performance.

Still, not everyone was satisfied. The night the story broke, news
commentator Quincy Howe on another network announced that
Burdett had made his information available in a private hearing
four years earlier. Howe saw no reason why Burdett's story should
have been made public at such a late date. It was a lucky thing,
he said, that Burdett could work on sustaining shows since no spon-
sor would hire him. But over on a third network, Fulton Lewis, Jr.
only fifteen minutes earlier said the testimony had raised a lot of
questions, one of which was why Senator Eastland felt obliged to
write CBS on Burdett's behalf. Was there any reason to believe,
Lewis asked, that CBS might have considered firing Burdett for his
patriotic act in testifying?

Yet, CBS keeps trying to eat its own cake. Edward R. Murrow,
who is considered beyond the pale in the anti-Communist power
centers, goes on his way. Murrow's McCarthy broadcast caused a
great deal of criticism (some of it merely professional). O'Shea is
reliably reported to have disputed Murrow's use of J. Robert
Oppenheimer on the celebrated "See It Now" program which kept
the "radical-right" pot boiling for months. These instances alone
would have been enough to upset most conscientious public-rela-
tions men. But CBS — villain to those who reject blacklisting —
can always point to its Ed Murrow when the criticism gets too hot.
When criticisms of Murrow start to mount, the network can point
with pride to the tight shop its "security officers" run.

It is no secret that Murrow is something less than enthusiastic
about his network's "screening" policies. By the same token,

127

O'Shea was utterly convinced that there is at least some intrinsic
worth in what the network's "security officers" do. Some distraught
radio-tv people left O'Shea's office feeling less vindictive towards
him than they were before they went in. One went so far as to
characterize him as being "emotional" about the problem. All
seemed to agree that O'Shea was, if nothing else, candid. He be-
lieved in blacklisting (though undoubtedly the word offended him),
and he tried to practice it as judiciously as possible.

More likely than not, the performer "cleared" at CBS had sought
help. His agent may have told him he was "in trouble" or he may
have found out directly through a friend in the network that he had
to be cleared before CBS would hire him. In any event, his chances
for "clearance" were enhanced considerably if he came under
auspices of an acceptable "clearance man." If he could come bear-
ing credentials, or implicit agreement, from AWARE, Inc., Counter-
attack, the American Legion, or George Sokolsky, so much the
better.

The best way for the accused to go about getting "clearance"
was, and still is, first to find someone who knows his way around.
In the process the "victim" will almost certainly have to render an
explanation of his past activities, often in the form of an affidavit.
He should also divulge whatever information he has, whether or not
he believes it useful, to the FBI. Depending on his record and
auspices, he may have to certify his earnestness by other acts. Sup-
port of an AwARE-endorsed position in his union, plus, say, signing
a petition against admission of Red China to the U.N., might turn
the trick. The important thing is to "clear" himself as much as pos-
sible before seeing the network's "security officers."

128

Aware, Inc.

IN THE SPRING OF 1955 the NBC network, wanting to clear a
prominent performer for a top dramatic show, asked the actor to
get two letters of endorsement, one from an officer of the Anti-
Defamation League, the other from Godfrey P. Schmidt, President
of AWARE, Inc. The network's request was recognition of the grow-
ing importance of AWARE, Inc., "an organization to combat the
Communist conspiracy in entertainment-communications."

At one time the letter from the Anti-Defamation League official
might have turned the trick, but in this case it took two endorse-
ments. And of the two (as the actor found out), AWARE'S was
harder to get. For it is A WARE'S position that a performer wanting
to clear himself should not only prove he is not a Communist, or
Communist sympathizer, but give ample evidence that he is "ac-
tively" anti-Communist — or, in A WARE'S own words, that he does
not support "dangerous neutralism."

"No one can be neutral before the Communist challenge and
peril," AWARE stated in one of its publications. "Its threat to our
civilization demands that people stand up and be counted." Many
radio-tv people feel strongly about AWARE because it is their general
impression that those who wish to establish anti-Communist creden-
tials must "stand up and be counted" on AWARE'S side on any given
trade-union issue. Certainly one who opposes blacklisting, for
instance, would not be considered truly "anti-Communist" by
AWARE. But it was largely because the organization supports
blacklisting that members of the American Federation of Television

129

and Radio Artists voted almost 2 to 1 in the summer of 1955 to
"condemn" it — 982 in favor of the condemnation, 514 opposed.
In the New York Times for July 11, 1955, Jack Gould, radio-tv
columnist, summed up the meaning of AFTRA's vote condemning
AWARE, Inc.:

The vote represented the first time that the union's administrative
forces, which embrace a number of AWARE members, went down to
defeat in a mail referendum. The majority against AWARE would
not have been possible without the votes of many conservative federa-
tion members who in the past have opposed the union's so-called left-
wing faction. Prior to the referendum, an official of both AWARE
and the federation had estimated that the vote against AWARE would
total only perhaps three or four hundred.

Both the size and source of the anti-AWARE vote give a hollow
ring to the insistence of the AWARE supporters that the vote puts the
union in the embarrassing position of not being against Communists.
Quite the contrary, it was just such thinking — accept our way of being
anti-Communist or run the risk of being branded pro-Communist —
that undoubtedly accounted in large measure for the condemnation of
AWARE.

A few weeks before the referendum was taken, Godfrey P.
Schmidt had been quoted in the Times. "With the best of good will
we're going to make mistakes," Schmidt said of AWARE, "But we
cannot let fear of making mistakes freeze us into timid inactivity."
In Gould's opinion, Schmidt's admission that to catch some Com-
munists might mean the victimizing of innocent performers, was
"the best possible argument for not leaving the anti-Communist
problem in amateur hands" and helped swing the AFTRA vote
away from AWARE. Gould was convinced that Vincent Hartnett's
presence on AWARE'S board of directors also aroused resistance to
the organization among radio-tv performers.

"Who promoted Peress?" This is how one of the speakers at a
meeting welcoming the House Committee on Un-American Activi-
ties to New York in the summer of 1955, began his talk. The meet-

130

ing, sponsored by The Alliance, a coalition of right-wing patriotic
societies, was endorsed by leading figures in AWARE, Inc., including
the organization's President. The tie-in between the pro-blacklisting
faction in the radio-tv industry and the "radical right" is hardly a
secret. AWARE, Inc. is no exception.

In February, 1955, AWARE sponsored a forum for young peo-
ple. Among the speakers were the Chairman of the Conservative
Society, Yale Law School, a member of the Harvard Conservative
League, and a Queens College representative of the Intercollegiate
Society of Individualists. At the meeting one speaker urged a
revival of the America First movement. Other speakers endorsed
the Bricker Amendment. Robert Amoury of the New York Uni-
versity Law School expressed dissatisfaction with President Eisen-
hower's administration. Voters who "saw in Eisenhower a Lochin-
var" were disenchanted, Amoury said. "They identified him with
the Taft, McCarthy, MacArthur, McCarran concept of government,
a concept which places country above party or personality." But
what has happened to their hopes? "They have turned into the
ashes of despair."

The AWARE meeting, in short, was frankly partisan and frankly
right-wing. It is understandable that a large percentage of the
AFTRA membership is loath to accept Aw ARE'S standards for
"sincere and active anti-communism." To many anti-Communists
in the industry, AWARE is barely differentiated from other right-
wing political groups (even though from time to time it speaks as
if its patriotic interests transcend partisan issues) and they want
no part of it. "If they want to support McCarthy and his crowd,
that's then: business," said one actor, "but why should my patrio-
tism be questioned because I disagree with them?"

What does distinguish AWARE from other right-wing organiza-
tions is the relentlessness with which it carries its "conspiracy"
thesis to practical conclusions, and its success in being accepted on
Madison Avenue as representing the "anti-Communists."

131

Godfrey P. Schmidt, the guiding spirit of AWARE, first came to
public attention when he served as legal counsel for Cardinal Spell-
man during the famous cemetery strike of 1949. Schmidt, a Ford-
ham law professor, is well known in Catholic circles and has gained
something of a reputation as a Thomist logician. For a time he told
children's stories on radio. This work qualified him for membership
in AFTRA. Schmidt has often appeared on New York television
panels, at times as a supporter of Senator McCarthy, always as a
right-wing conservative battling with "liberal" spokesmen.

AWARE, under Schmidt's leadership, has generalized its own
experience in the radio-tv industry into a program for all of Ameri-
can life. The basic principle of the program is the extension of
loyalty and security screening to all employment. In an AWARE
Bulletin entitled "Recommendations for Stockholder and Manage-
ment Action to Establish Anti-Subversive Policies in Corporations"
this basic statement is made: "Governmental security regulations
covering so-called 'defense facilities' (plants or parts of plants ex-
ecuting defense contracts), are limited and do not protect the rest
of industry from subversive penetration." The Bulletin goes on to
outline a method for bringing all corporate employment under
loyalty screening. A sample stockholders' resolution is given:

. . . The Directors of the Corporation ... are directed to refrain
. . . from employing and . . . continuing in employment, any person
who is found to have been a member at any time of the Communist
Party or of any group, organization or combination of persons cited
as subversive by the Attorney General of the United States, the Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives or
the Subversive Activities Control Board, unless such person shall have
repudiated such membership under oath; or any person who has
refused to answer questions about his or her purported subversive
associations or activities, before any court, legislative committee or
other properly constituted governmental authority.

A prominent member of A WARE'S board of directors carried this
point to its logical conclusion in an interview. Should a Commu-

132

nist, he was asked, be allowed to wrap packages in a supermarket?
No. It was then pointed out that J. Edgar Hoover had estimated
Communist Party membership at 25,000, with ten fellow travelers
for every Party member — a total of 275,000 people who would,
on the face of it, be denied all employment. And this num-
ber of course would increase when past associations were taken
into consideration. The AWARE board member was asked: "What
are you going to do with these people — starve them into submis-
sion?" This, he agreeed, posed a problem — but nevertheless, the
principle must be maintained.

In practice, AWARE, though it urges universal political screening,
has confined its efforts to the radio and television field. With
blacklisting firmly established on Madison Avenue, A WARE'S main
function has been to uphold it and call for its extension. In the case
of the entertainment industry, the size of the salaries involved is
added to AWARE'S general arguments for denying employment to
"subversives."

AWARE has not published any public "lists," but its bulletins
have cited the past political associations of radio-tv workers,
a la Red Channels. These bulletins are treated with the utmost
seriousness by some of the "security officers" on Madison Avenue.
But "exposure" is not among AWARE'S chief purposes. The organi-
zation, rather, has functioned as a pressure group within the in-
dustry. As individuals, however, certain prominent AWARE mem-
bers have been deeply involved in the blacklisting machinery. The
organization's prestige is an element in establishing their creden-
tials as anti-Communist "experts." For instance, the actor NBC
was trying to clear, did get a letter from Godfrey Schmidt and was
given a lead on a dramatic show. When it was announced that he
would appear a week later there were immediate protests. To the
embarrassment of the network, Schmidt said he did not intend his
letter, written in Christian charity, to serve as "clearance" and
pointed out he wrote it as an individual, not as president of AWARE,

133

Inc. But the interesting fact was the enormous prestige which
Schmidt could bring to bear "as an individual." Armed with his
letter, the network felt safe in lifting its ban against the actor.

In its support of political screening, AWARE operates according
to this logic: Communism is a conspiracy; therefore Communists
and all those who collaborate with them, knowingly or not, are
conspirators. A "pattern" of Communistic associations is a pattern
of conspiracy. So not to support political screening is to support
political conspiracy. Those who oppose blacklisting, whether they
know it or not, are supporters of the Communist conspiracy.

AWARE states frequently that as an organization it does not
blacklist. This is true. The organization has about the same rela-
tionship to institutionalized blacklisting as a front group has to the
Communist Party: it lends position, prestige and power to the
practice.

But AWARE goes further than that. AWARE has formalized
"clearance." It has published a guide on the subject called The
Road Back (subtitled Self-clearance) . The Road Back asks: "How
many Communists — and those who helped them or permitted
themselves to be put in the light of helping communism — manifest
a change of heart and mind, perform deeds indicative of this change
and thus clear themselves of suspicion and return to normal em-
ployability?" It goes on then to discuss how the truly repentant
can be recognized.

The first problem of "rehabilitation" is "who shall judge these
transitions?" AWARE feels that the judgment should not "rest in
any official investigating committee or in some private group." The
principle of "individual responsibility for individual acts" is to be
determined by "that part of public opinion concerned." In the rest
of the pamphlet, however, it is made clear that AWARE regards it-
self as a tremendously important, if not decisive, "part of the public
opinion concerned" in the case of the radio-tv industry.

134

What this means in practice is that a person wishing to be cleared
must work through "anti-Communists" of AWARE'S persuasion.
The Road Back notes: "A subject's fellow citizens are not apt to be
impressed if he insists that anti-communism based on the American
constitutional system is a greater menace than communism." This
would seem to be a euphemism warning those going through "self-
clearance" against associating with "liberal" anti-Communists or
taking a forthright anti-AwARE position in public.

However, AWARE does not leave the "clearance" problem up in
the air. To its credit, it is frank, forthright and specific about how
a man "in trouble" can be reinstated. The Road Back lists 12
"suggested steps" in the process of "rehabilitation" :

1. Questions to ask oneself : Do I love my country? Do I believe my
country in danger? Can I do anything to relieve that danger?
Will I tell the full, relevant and unflattering truth?

2. Recognition that, whatever the subject's intentions at the time, his
name, efforts, money or other support gave aid and comfort to
the Communist conspiracy.

3. Full and frank disclosure, in written form, of all connections past
and present with subversive elements, organizations, causes and
individuals. Attach pertinent literature, correspondence, record
of financial contributions, programs, newspaper clippings or other
documentary material. Identify those who drew the subject into
unfortunate situations and actions; identify those the subject in
turn involved. (This disclosure may be used publicly or privately,
as circumstances indicate.)

4. Voluntary and cooperative interview with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation on the basis of the foregoing full and frank dis-
closure. The content of such interviews remains inviolate with
the FBI.

5. A written offer to cooperate, as a witness or source of information
with:

a. The Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of
Representatives, Room 225A, Old House Office Building,
Washington 25, D.C.

135

b. Subcommittee on Internal Security of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington 25, D.C.

c. Subversive Activities Control Board, Washington, D.C.

d. Any other committee in Senate or House properly interested
in some or all of the information the subject may have.

e. Any other security agency of the federal government, as may
be appropriate.

f . Any state legislative committee or executive office investigating
subversive activities.

g. Any local authorities (police departments, grand juries, county
and federal-district prosecutors and agencies) interested in
local subversive activities.

6. In the subject's union (s), he should make his new position on
communism clearly known by statements in meetings, letters or
statements in union publications, etc. Whatever else he may do,
he should not support the Communist or crypto-Communist ele-
ment on any issue, no matter how attractive or insignificant it may
then appear. Other union issues may then be freely debated
without subversive interference.

7. The subject should make public his new position on communism
by all other means available: statements in trade publications,
"Letters to the Editor," personal correspondence to all who might
be interested: such as anti-Communist journalists and organiza-
tions, employers, friends and fellow professionals.

8. Outside the field of entertainment-communications many oppor-
tunities for establishing a new position are available: political,
social and civic clubs, parent-teacher organizations, library and
school committees, religious and cultural groups. They may be
urged to increase the number of anti-Communist speakers, books,
lectures, candidates, etc.

9. Support anti-Communist persons, groups and organizations.

10. The subject should keep himself informed by subscribing to rec-
ommended anti-Communist magazines, reading anti-Communist
books, government reports and other literature.

11. The subject should support anti-Communist legislation having
responsible endorsement.

136

12. If the subject's new convictions draw him to, or back to, religion,
so much the better; he achieves the best of all reasons for opposing
communism. He can become actively anti-Communist in his
church or other religious organizations. In church groups, as
everywhere, he can combat neutralism and anti-anti-communism.

As The Road Back indicates, AWARE, in theory and practice, is
motivated by the idea that there are only two sides — the "pro-
Communist" side and the pro-AwARE side. According to this view,
the nearly 1,000 AFTRA members who voted to condemn AWARE
are at best "dupes" of the Communist Party. George Sokolsky, an
AWARE fellow-traveler, described the AFTRA condemnation as
just one more incident in a "struggle between Communists and anti-
Communists" for control of the union — and that is also how
AWARE saw it.

What this drastic either/or means psychologically to the actor
or writer who has to go through "self-clearance" — naming the
names of those who drew him into "situations," for instance — can
only be imagined. Yet for many, unwillingness to submit to the pro-
cedure means unemployment. Actors "in trouble" have had to
accept as real the phantom world of AWARE, Inc. — a world con-
ceived of as polarized between two extremes; on the one hand a
tightly knit group of conspirators; on the other a group of right-
wing anti-Communists who look on their own politics as the only
valid form of anti-communism. Because of this drastic either/or,
all who have not joined the "anti-Communist" side remain, in one
way or another, suspect to AWARE.

This is the criticism of AWARE which has made it such a highly
controversial organization in the radio-tv field. It is a criticism
which has never been answered convincingly, though few organi-
zations have as able a spokesman as AWARE has in its president,
Godfrey P. Schmidt. In the following statement, submitted to the
author of this report, Mr. Schmidt expresses A WARE'S view on the
blacklisting problem.

137

In The Legislative Way of Life, T. V. Smith makes three asser-
tions which differ profoundly from the principles applied by AWARE,
Inc. in its fight against Communist penetration of the entertainment-
communication field. Smith declares that: (1) "we must assume that
all major interests in a given society are equally legitimate"; (2) "we
must assume that representatives of the legitimate interests are equally
honest"; and (3) that "we must assume . . . that ideals (justice for
example) cannot be invoked to settle issues that involve quarrels as to
what the ideals are or as to who owns them."

In AWARE we begin with a more realistic principle, which has been
established by history, by philosophy and theology: that communism,
in theory and practice, is an unmitigated evil and those who spread
or aid it are to that extent hurting all of us, including themselves. If a
person does not appreciate this truth, he will scarcely be in sympathy
with AWARE, Inc.; nor with constitutional government, nor with the
ideals of patriotism, justice and civic amity which have made the
United States of America a great nation.

So uniform is the conviction that communism, in theory and prac-
tice, affronts essential societal decencies and degrades the human person
that practically everybody except fools and rogues condemn it and
criticize those who aid it.

Now recognition of the grave evil inherent in communism calls for
action to obliterate or to limit the Communist peril. It will not do
simply to criticize communism by use of generalities. Patriotism,
justice and respect or friendship for fellow citizens all impose a duty
to act. Everyone who gives help and comfort to communism, whether
in theory or practice, is contributing to the Communist world con-
spiracy and, to that extent, knowingly or unknowingly, betraying the
country. Charity forbids that we hate anyone or that we be actuated
by malice with respect to the fools or rogues who thus try to give aid
or comfort to communism in one way or another. But we must try, in
season and out of season, to save them from themselves and to save
this country and the rest of the world from the catastrophe of the
world Communist conspiracy. The first requirement in this connection
is that we recognize and know our enemy and those who do his bidding.
Because he characteristically hides in cowardly fashion behind pretenses
and duplicity, he must be unmasked. The person who has joined a
string of fronts should not be solaced by trade-union sympathy when
this fact is revealed. Instead, he should now repudiate the fronts.

138

Now there are two kinds of people, generally speaking, who are
obviously aiding and giving comfort to the Communist world move-
ment: (a) those who are consciously in sympathy with communism
or with some of its major objectives, principles or methods; and (b)
those who, through flightiness or mere stupidity, have joined either the
Communist Party or some of its "transmission belts."

There is no question here of exposing or humiliating a person who
years ago, in a moment of ineptitude or immaturity, has joined a Com-
munist front organization or even the Communist Party — but who
quickly thereafter came to his senses and who, in the intervening years,
has never applied or lived up to the infamous Communist premises.
What we are concerned with are those persons who have long, unrepu-
diated records of significant affiliation with Communist front organiza-
tions or with the Communist Party.

AWARE will not be deflected from the fight against the Communist
conspiracy by anguished cries of "blacklisting" from the very people
who, as adults, have joined the Communist Party or have, without
protest, permitted their names to be associated with Communist front
organizations over a period of years. It is a pitiful spectacle that
persons who have joined such organizations time and again, who have
never repudiated communism in any of its forms or fronts, should now
become tender about being recognized in those affiliations and should
bleat "blacklisting!" against us who identify their affiliations (as if
such a "blacklisting" were some nefarious activity) .

The word "blacklisting" requires definition and distinction. It means
three different things, as used in current controversy:

( 1 ) It means the unfair labor practice committed by some employers
when they discriminate unjustly against anyone because of
union affiliation or other concerted activity in employment.
This conduct is condemned by federal and state legislation and
by good morals. AWARE, Inc. also condemns it and has never
indulged in it.

(2) It means defaming someone by untruthful or erroneous state-
ment; or maliciously destroying someone's good name by
unfounded or unwarranted defamation. The injury in this case
is to someone's standing in his profession or to his reputation.
Such defamation is in violation of ancient standards of law
(libel and slander). It is also a violation of sound morals and
religion. Along with all right-minded persons, AWARE, Inc.

139

condemns such conduct and has never indulged in it. Every
time AWARE, Inc., by one of its bulletins has identified a person
as a member of the Communist Party or as a member of some
Communist front organization, it has told the complete truth
and it has in its possession ample documentation or other evi-
dence to demonstrate this. Not one of the persons thus iden-
tified by AWARE has filed suit to challenge AWARE'S accuracy.
(3) Some persons have found it to their advantage to transfer the
name "blacklisting" from its traditional meaning in senses (1)
and (2), above, so that it will cover a third meaning: to tell the
truth about people when, in the interest of one's union, one's
profession and one's country, the truth needs to be told. This
is not "blacklisting" imputing wrong or unjust conduct.

If, in fact, people are giving aid and comfort to communism, by
becoming members of the Communist Party or by frequently joining
Communist front organizations, the current world situation requires
that they be identified as carriers of a political and moral contagion,
whether they know it or not. They should not be allowed to be
"neutral" in this fight. They should stand up and be counted. In this
mortal conflict, he "who gathers not with us scatters." Almost nine
hundred million people behind Iron Curtains without the slightest
vestige of civil liberties is holocaust enough. It is time to fight back.
We must protect ourselves and our heritage.

In this respect it must be admitted that an actor's reputation is
"precariously perched." Every man's reputation is, in a sense, pre-
cariously perched. One foul act, one immoral decision can send it to
destruction.

Each responsible human being carries his own reputation in his
hands, as it were. If he is guilty of obscene or indecent conduct, he
cannot validly hope to be immunized from criticism for it simply
because he happens to have great talent as an artist. If a man commits
murder, he is going to be recognized as a murderer. He cannot run
to his union because of the damage to his reputation and professional
standing which results from his own conduct. Communism is a con-
spiracy that has to its discredit more murders than have ever char-
acterized any previous tyrants in history. In Red China alone, since
October, 1949, more than 15 million persons have been liquidated for
political reasons only.

140

A man who affiliates himself with the Communist movement in one
fashion or another, wittingly or unwittingly, by his own act and choice
shoulders some of the invidium of communism. He can't blame others.
No employer can be compelled to employ persons with significant Com-
munist affiliations. Actors who join Communist fronts have to learn
the hard way. They have to learn much about their audiences. In the
main, audiences are patriotic. They resent even slight participation in
the Communist conspiracy.

The truth will not be gagged by a slogan like "blacklisting." From
time to time, as the evidence indicates and as the need demands,
AWARE will continue to publish the truth about actors who support
Communist-front organizations. Maybe these actors are too craven to
want the unpleasant truth about themselves known. But, by par-
ticipating in Communist-front activity, they have helped conspirators
in burying a knife in the back of Americans. Their virtuosity as per-
formers is no condonation. They know this themselves. That is why
they hysterically condemn "blacklisting," try to make AWARE a scape-
goat and appeal to unions to do what no union can do: to hygienize
their popularity tainted with Communist infection.

They could so easily wash away the infection.

The strangest part of their performance is that they do the very
things that they charge AWARE with doing. They say that AWARE is
unjust because it condemns people. But they, too, condemn people.
They condemn AWARE, its directors and members. The fact of con-
demnation is in itself not significant. The important question is: is the
condemnation warranted on the merits? In the current controversy
they happen to be wrong. AWARE happens to be right. They do not
make any serious effort to show AWARE is wrong in its disclosures. If
it were available to them it would be their best weapon against AWARE.
No one knows that better than they.

They like to ask by what right AWARE and its members constitute
themselves as "self-appointed judges" to criticize in these matters.
Politically speaking, the right should be obvious to persons who had
some respect for civil rights and free speech. It is indeed the same
political right which they presume to exercise when they judge AWARE
and its membership. The trouble is, their judgment is wrong on the
facts and on the merits.

Perhaps the most laughable of all the criticisms addressed against

141

AWARE is the one that came from the hysterical performer who began
by saying: "Don't any of you bigots classify me" He lived in the
illusion that he was going down the "middle way" and that he was
attacking extremists at both ends. He was, in a word, a "neutralist."
Only fools or rogues could be neutral in the fight between the Free
World and communism, which has ruthlessly despoiled so many nations
and peoples. The man who didn't want others to classify him, himself
exercised the right to classify. He called those to whom he was opposed
"bigots." He denied to others the same right of classification which he
used with uncouth and random judgment.

This is typical of the "liberalism" which presumes to attack AWARE.
The old liberalism wanted less government control. The new liberalism
wants more government control. The old liberalism yielded to others
the very civil liberties it claimed for itself. The new "liberals" want
freedom of speech, freedom to classify for themselves, but not for
others. The old liberals knew that bad conduct could invoke no immu-
nity from criticism because of good art. Wagner could be called a
stinker by the very people who thought he was a genius as a composer.
The new liberalism wants talent as an actor to shield a man from the
unpopularity that greets character defects and sin.

It is not that AWARE wants an immunity from criticism. AWARE
recognizes that those who are criticizing it in the present controversy
about "blacklisting" are precisely the people who are laying claim to an
immunity from criticism because they help communism. Yet they
freely criticize AWARE and its membership. They ask unions to adopt
resolutions which are, in effect, gag rules and bills of attainder. Hypo-
critically, those resolutions are aimed at "blacklisting" in senses ( 1 ) and
(2) above. Those who have voted for such resolutions have never
squarely faced "blacklisting" in sense (3) above. If they had, they
would not be so naive as to suppose that "blacklisting" in sense (3)
(telling the unpleasant truth that needs to be told) can ever be hindered
or halted by a union. Persons in public life, such as actors and poli-
ticians, will always be vulnerable to the truth. It would be a tragic day
for this country if the truth were not available to wound them in con-
science and popularity when they hide behind the skirts of the Com-
munist conspiracy.

142

The Theatrical Unions

IN THE FALL OF 1952, a partial transcript of testimony given be-
fore the Senate Internal Subcommittee was made public. In a brief
foreword, signed by the Chairman, Senator McCarran, and Senators
Eastland and Watkins, this statement appeared:

In 1943, pursuant to orders from Alexander Trachtenberg, a Com-
munist leader, there began a systematic Communist infiltration of the
field of radio. Thereafter, a continuing struggle developed within the
Radio Writers Guild between pro-Communist and anti-Communist
factions. Although a large majority of the membership of the Radio
Writers Guild is anti-Communist, the council of the Guild, which is the
governing body, is controlled by the pro-Communist faction which has
aligned the Guild in support of Communist organizations and causes.

Similar statements have been made at one time or another about
other New York talent unions, in particular Actors Equity Asso-
ciation and the American Federation of Television and Radio
Artists (AFTRA).

The relationship between union activity and blacklisting in
radio-tv is complex. In the charges and countercharges of recent
years, both pro- and anti-blacklisting factions in the talent guilds
have claimed they were being discriminated against because of
positions taken at union meetings. One group maintains it has
suffered because of its "militant unionism"; the other insists it has
been discriminated against for leading a fight against communism.
There is a measure of exaggeration in both charges.

"Militant unionism" per se was never a cause of blacklisting.
But from union records information could be gathered about a

143

performer's or writer's politics, and this information provided
charges for the dossiers that were assembled when blacklisting
began. In many cases, then, blacklisted performers and writers
claimed they were "in trouble" because they were good trade-
unionists.

The confusion followed from a more fundamental error. The
error consisted in sharply dividing theatrical unionists into two
extremist camps, "pro-Communist" and "anti-Communist," and
simply ignoring the liberals and conservatives (anti-Communist
but not right-whig) who make up the center. As a result many
pro-Roosevelt partisans were falsely assigned to the "pro-Commu-
nist" camp and some who were opposed to communism but had no
sympathy for "anti-Communist" extremism were assigned to the
far right. In the beginning, it was wholly misleading to polarize
the unions this way. But after the neat division had been repeated
over and over, the reality began to approximate the lop-sided image.
For as the struggles between "pro-" and "anti-Communists" intensi-
fied, the broad center of the talent unions gave up going to meetings
and the internal strife was actually polarized. To be sure, there
were still anti-Communists opposed to blacklisting and some liber-
als and conservatives supported it, but most people directly involved
simply dropped out and left the extremists to fight it out.

Before the union situation can be related to blacklisting, then,
it is necessary to get some idea of how the extremists gained such
power. The Radio Writers Guild, now defunct, can be taken as a
typical example. What is said about the Writers Guild is more or
less true too of AFTRA, the actors' union.

Three groups were at work in the Radio Writers Guild through-
out its history: a fairly small Communist faction, a fairly small
right-wing faction, and a center composed of the bulk of the mem-
bership, largely liberal and New Dealish.

There is little concrete evidence of Communist activity in the
radio-tv field. Only a few former members of the Party have testi-

144

fied before Congressional Committees. Much of what has been
written about the subject makes no distinctions between liberals
and Communists. Still, certain generalizations are possible and one
fact is beyond dispute: there was a conscious, organized Commu-
nist caucus in the entertainment industry which pushed the Party
line hi the various talent unions.

The testimony of two witnesses, former members of the Com-
munist faction, is revealing. One of these, an actor named George
Hall, appeared at the hearings of the House Un-American Activi-
ties Committee on August 17, 1955 at the Foley Square Court
House in New York City. Hall said he had been a member of
the Party for 18 months, had joined a year after the end of World
War II and maintained links with the Party after he resigned. He
went to the FBI on March 5, 1954, and wrote the Committee in
May, asking for a hearing. The picture he later gave of the opera-
tion of the Communist faction (the union hi this case was Actors
Equity Association) does not square with the Communists' repu-
tation for ubiquity and super-efficiency.

Hall testified that during his 18 months in the Party he attended
no union caucus meetings. His main activity during his stay in
the Party had been to entertain at a few (five "at the outside")
fund-raising parties. He had voted as he was told in union elections
but otherwise had not participated in any disciplined Communist
union activity.

This is not to imply, of course, that Party activity hi the industry
and talent unions was ineffective. The testimony of Allan E.
Sloane, a radio writer, before the House Un-American Activities
Committee in January, 1954, indicates that the Communists in the
unions were well organized and disciplined. Party members wrote
agit-prop scripts (for Party affairs), prepared speeches and carried
on a lively schedule of political activity. Still, Sloane's testimony
also bears out the belief that the actual Communists in the industry,
though dedicated and active, were few at all times.

145

But difficulties in assessing the Party's role in the talent unions
arise when the Communist periphery is taken into account. And
it is precisely here that most of the confusion has arisen. A case in
point was a rally held at Carnegie Hall on October 16, 1942,
under the sponsorship of The Artists' Front to Win the War. The
meeting was organized to agitate for a second front. "We call
for united support of our President and the military leaders of
America, who have urged the advisability of a second front this
year." The program distributed at the meeting devoted two pages
to quoting outstanding Americans who agreed that a second front
should be opened.

The demand for a second front, of course, was one of the
major causes of the American Communist Party at that time. But
many non-Communists were eager for it, too. The sponsors of the
rally included some who undoubtedly are Communists, or at least
were then, but also numbered people obviously not Party members,
among them the veteran anti-Communist actor Eddie Dowling,
who described himself late in 1954 as "the only supporter of Senator
McCarthy left on Broadway." The Carnegie Hall meeting was
typical. It demonstrated that Communists were often able to
assemble a broad non-Communist and Communist grouping for
support of their line.

Paul Milton, a radio writer and board member of AWARE, Inc.,
was asked when he appeared before the McCarran Subcommittee
in 1951: "Does the line of this Radio Writers Guild leadership
approximate the Communist Party line?" Milton answered: "On key
questions, yes, sir. On the Mundt-Nixon bill it followed the line. . . .
At the time, for instance, that the soldier vote was under considera-
tion in, I guess it was the House, one of the members, a member
of the pro-Communist faction, attempted to induce the guild to
communicate with Washington on the question, when the question
of soldier's vote, one way or the other, had no connection what-
soever with the Guild."

146

Another witness who testified against the Radio Writers Guild
leadership, Welbourn Kelley, cited denunciations of the American
Legion and the (Catholic) Brooklyn Tablet at union meetings as
examples of the strength of the pro-Communist faction. Clearly,
in the cases mentioned by Milton and Kelley, there were many
anti-Communists who opposed the Mundt-Nixon bill, the Taft-
Hartley bill or who were critical of the American Legion and the
Brooklyn Tablet.

Unfortunately, these distinctions have often been ignored. "Inno-
cent" liberals who participated in Communist fronts and actual
Party members were often lumped together as the "pro-Communist
faction" in the debates that raged within the talent unions. Because
of this, many who were never Communists but have been black-
listed claim they are being punished for yesterday's union "mili-
tancy." What did happen is that many pro-union people in the
entertainment field frequently found themselves in agreement on
union issues with an unidentified Communist faction. And it is
the latter fact, not unionism per se, which forms the basis of charges
against them.

During the early days of the Radio Writers Guild, there was a
split on the question of how labor-oriented the organization should
be. One group considered the Guild part of the general trade-union
movement. Another thought that the Guild should be a profes-
sional organization, remote from the struggles of manual workers.
Some Communists and many non-Communists were in the group
favoring unionism. Among those who sought to make the Guild
into a professional association were a number of the people who
were later to form AWARE, Inc.

How deep this early disagreement went can be seen from the
testimony of Ruth Adams Knight. Miss Knight, a veteran radio
writer, recalled an incident in 1943. She had come back to New
York after a long absence and was told by a friend that the Guild

147

was "faced with a desperate situation." Miss Knight went to a
meeting to learn what her friend meant.

I went to the meeting and it was not a meeting which I would have
recognized — I knew very few of the people there — it might easily have
been a meeting of the Steamfitters Union and it had no relation to
writers or writers' rights or anything of that sort, and it was entirely a
labor meeting and a meeting in which a great deal of violence was
expressed. There was a great deal of turbulence ... I do not think I
am exaggerating when I say the mob spirit of the meeting was very
evident, and the Author's League, as I say, had always been a dignified
body of writers . . .

Thus, the "pro-Communist" and "anti-Communist" split was
rooted hi a larger disagreement. On the one side were those who
resisted the Guild's labor orientation as strongly as Ruth Adams
Knight. On the other side, a large group, by no means all Com-
munist, differed with them. Since some of the most articulate and
powerful "anti-Communists" of later years came out of the group
which opposed the trade-union concept of the Guild, many of the
non-Communists who had disagreed with them in the past felt that
a purge of "militant unionists" was on, when blacklisting began. A
similar situation existed in the American Federation of Radio
Artists where the right-wing "anti-Communist" faction first began
to form during the Second World War in opposition to the union's
endorsing Franklin D. Roosevelt.

In the period when blacklisting developed, this confusion had
immediate practical consequences. For one thing, the anti-Com-
munists of extreme right- whig persuasion were in a good position :
they had never joined Communist fronts, their records were "clean."
For another, they took their own analysis of the split in the industry
seriously. The result was an "anti-Communist" ideology largely
based on the proposition that there was only one kind of anti-
communism, that represented by the right wing. Exceptions were
made (Morton Wishengrad, a liberal anti-Communist writer, is

148

acceptable to AWARE, Inc.)? but the prevailing notion was rooted
in a simplified division of the union into two absolutely opposed
factions.

It was this simplification which got the McCarran Committee
into trouble on the very day it released its report on the Radio
Writers Guild. One of the central issues before the Guild at that
time was a highly publicized resolution submitted by Welbourn
Kelley to the Regular Council Meeting, Eastern Region, of the
Radio Writers Guild. On July 25, 1950, Kelley had proposed that
the Guild offer its services to support America's role in the Korean
War. His motion was rejected, and this fact was repeated time and
again by those who charged that the Guild was dominated by
Communists.

There was a heated discussion about the proposal centered on a
motion to table, on grounds that the Radio Writers Guild never
took political positions. The motion to table carried by a vote of
4 to 3, with the chair casting the deciding ballot. Interestingly
enough, one of the Radio Writers Guild members frequently ac-
cused of "pro-communism" by the right wing joined Kelley and a
member of the right-wing faction in voting against tabling.

Kelley was angered by the tabling motion. After it carried, he
proposed, bitterly, that "the Eastern Region Council of the Radio
Writers Guild go on record as opposed to any cooperation with the
United States Government if such cooperation places the Guild or
its membership in opposition to communism." This, of course, was
an attempt to spell out what Kelley regarded as the implicit basis of
the motion to table the first resolution. Kelley was ruled out of
order by the chair, and a vote was taken on this ruling. The liberal
Guild member who had voted with Kelley against the motion to
table switched and cast his ballot in favor of upholding the ruling of
the chair.

Finally, the following motion was passed, with only Kelley
dissenting:

149

Be it resolved that the Council of the Eastern Region go on record
as stating categorically that the Council's vote on tabling the first
motion introduced by Webb Kelley did not involve any expression of
sentiment on the issue of cooperation or noncooperation with the
United States Government.

When the news of this session became public, the Kelley incident
was cited as proof that the Guild was dominated by "pro-Com-
munists." Yet there was a precedent for the argument that the Guild
never took positions on political issues, so non-Communists might
honestly have voted against the Kelley resolution on that ground.
This, in fact, was true of at least two or three of the Council mem-
bers who voted against Kelley.

Some years later, in 1955, one of the Guild members who had
voted against the Kelley resolution was called before the Interna-
tional Organizations Employees Loyalty Board for a hearing to
determine whether or not the Government objected to his working
for the United Nations. One of the charges against him was his Guild
vote at this meeting. But the Loyalty Board cleared the writer.
Another radio writer who voted against Kelley has notarized state-
ments from leaders of AWARE, Inc. attesting that they have no
knowledge he is "pro-Communist." It is possible to establish that a
majority of those in attendance at the Council meeting were not
Communist or even "pro-Communists." The reason for their vote
must be sought elsewhere. But it would be ridiculous to assume
that only anti-Communists were present at the meeting. Some
who voted against the Kelley resolution did so on the basis of their
general political attitude, not because of their respect for the tra-
ditions of the union. In short, they were pro-Communist. But,
in a sense, this is what is typical about the Kelley incident. Involved
were right-wing anti-Communists, liberal anti-Communists and pro-
Communists. As usual, though, these groupings were reduced to
"pro-Communist" and "anti-Communist" and the conclusion was
drawn that the majority was sympathetic to the Red cause.

150

In 1952, when the McCarran report was issued, the simplifica-
tion was reinforced again. But the same day The New York Times
announced the Committee's findings, it also reported on a letter
made public by Welbourn Kelley. Kelley said in his letter that he
had been told his testimony would not be released. More than this,
he said that he had referred to certain people as "left-wingers" but
the Committee instructed him to describe them as "pro-Commu-
nist." "I am extremely sorry that I allowed myself to make this
mistake," Kelley stated, "I have no doubt all these people will be
harmed [by the release of the testimony]. I respectfully ask that
the statements made by me which somehow were omitted from
the testimony now be made part of the record, namely, that I can-
not say of my own knowledge that any member of the Guild is a
Communist."

Kelley's letter pointed up the mistake which the Committee —
and most analysts — made in dealing with the Guild and with the
union situation in radio, television and the theatre in general: a
confusion of the "left-wing," i.e. the New Dealer, the Socialist, the
non-conformist, the radical, with the "Communist conspirator."

Some liberals tended to make a similar error. They continued
in the Cold War era to act on the assumptions of the Popular Front
days of World War II. Many of the election slates put forward in
the talent unions by the anti-blacklisting group were easy targets
for their opponents because there was equivocation on the issue of
communism. The majority of those who protested blacklisting
were anti-Communists. Yet somehow they believed it necessary
to include Communists or well-known fellow-travelers on their
slates so as not to violate civil liberties. The result of this was to
perpetuate the simplistic division of the union into "pro-Commu-
nists" and "anti-Communists." The "center" — anti-Communist
and anti-blacklisting — never succeeded in making itself heard. This
was true in both the New York Radio Writers Guild and in
AFTRA.

151

One militant member of the anti-blacklisting faction in the
Radio Writers Guild recently made this point. He expressed great
anger with the Communists, especially with those who without
authorization had marched in May Day Parades carrying union
signs. But his concern was too late. By the time he realized the
role of the Communist Party in the Guild, much of the membership
had been more or less alienated from active participation and the
polarities of left and right were generally accepted.

In the New Leader of December 8, 1952, an article by Harry
Gersch and Paul Milton, both partisans of the "anti-Communist"
faction in the Radio Writers Guild, described a recent union elec-
tion. Their caucus, We The Undersigned, had been decisively de-
feated, and the New Leader article was a kind of post-mortem.
Toward the end of the piece, they made their essential point:

The problem of the anti-Communist everywhere in this respect is
the same: how to reassure the person who may once have been "soft"
on communism during the depression or the war, who may once have
given two dollars to an organization which was later seized by the
Party — how to reassure them that their better course is not to fear
their pasts, but to face them honestly and then go on to fight com-
munism.

(The diagnosis, though partisan, is accurate. To it should be added
the fact that having given two dollars to a certain organization could
mean, in the radio and television industry, that a man might have
difficulty finding a job, or at least have some explaining to do.)
Gersch and Milton raised a related point: "Many believe that
any attack on Communists and their helpers is an attack on civil
liberties." In the 1951 election, We The Undersigned "spoke
vaguely of the dangers of communism to America and to unions.
No persons were named — except the candidates — and all WTU
said was: Don't vote for them. This appeal wasn't enough." But
in the next election

152

... a fresh mandate was sought by WTU from those willing to appear
publicly as anti-Communists and the 1952 RWG campaign started,
this time wide open. We The Undersigned's literature now minced no
words. Names of persons who had been named as Communists in
sworn testimony (15), the Fifth Amendment group (4), and those
with records of activity in front organizations, were published to the
membership. Some of the anti-Communists accepted the new tactics
with glee; others did so reluctantly and only after much soul searching.
The RWG leadership reacted violently. Some honest liberals were
scandalized. Result: the worst defeat yet for the anti-Communist
group.

"Some honest liberals were scandalized." This was a very real
liability in a union whose general tone and attitude were liberal.
Furthermore, the election took place during the great debate over
Senator McCarthy and among the members of We The Under-
signed were many McCarthy-supporters. Here again, a neat
dichotomy was put forward, this time as pro- versus anti-McCarthy-
ism. Some of We The Undersigned's opponents were undeniably
either Communists or Party sympathizers; some of its members
were undeniably vociferous partisans of Senator McCarthy. But
the McCarthy, not the Communist, issue was decisive.

As an aftermath of the campaign by We The Undersigned, one
of the writers named in their literature filed a libel suit. It was
settled out of court when most of those who had backed the charges
against him made statements. A statement signed by one of the
authors of the New Leader article was typical:

. . . The statements of our opposition to X's election made in the said
bulletin were not intended to imply that we had any knowledge of any
fact that would lead to the belief that he was a Communist or a mem-
ber of the Communist Party, or directly or indirectly connected with
the Communist Party, or that he was, when the bulletins were issued,
or that he is now a member of any Communist front or action group, or
a member of any Communist conspiracy and we do not have any such
knowledge.

Whatever their intention, the We The Undersigned group had

153

given many people the impression that they were trying to label
this writer as a "pro-Communist." And this, in conjunction with
the widespread belief that the far right controlled We The Under-
signed, hurt their cause.

Another element, and one recognized by Milton and Gersch, was
that We The Undersigned had a "poor group record of union
activity in the past two years. Many of them had served as officers,
councilmen, committeemen, but not recently. Most gave up in
disgust; others who tried again felt so uncomfortable they bowed
out . . ." This, of course, goes back to the roots of the "pro-
Communist" and "anti-Communist" division: the anti-Communist
faction was suspected of anti-unionism because of the role played
by some of its members in the early days of the Guild. In those
days, the Communists were associated with "militant unionism,"
and their reputation remained an asset to them later.

All this took place during the period when blacklisting was being
institutionalized. The union struggle finally culminated in the
dissolution of the Radio Writers Guild and the formation of the
Writers Guild of America. Significantly, the first issue raised in
the new organization was a referendum on the Communist problem.

The same forces were at work among the radio-tv actors. In
late December, 1954, AWARE, Inc. issued a supplement to its
membership bulletin, entitled "AWARE Publication Number 12."
The bulletin discussed the opposition the AwARE-supported slate
had met in the December 9, 1954 AFTRA election.

"Publication Number 12" began with a report on the victory
which the AwARE-supported slate had won in the recent AFTRA
election. "Happily, AFTRA is one of the few unions in which
flatly declared anti-communism and anti-totalitarianism have won
many clear victories. The latest took place in the December 9
election of members of AFTRA's N. Y. Local Board."

The first statement, that AFTRA is "one of the few unions" in
which anti-communism is dominant, was itself tell-tale. Given the

154

complete defeat of the Communists in the AFL (where they never
had a base) and in the CIO (where their unions were expelled),
it could only strengthen the charge that AWARE was anti-union.
But it was not this statement which aroused AFTRA members so
much as the "listing" of defeated candidates with their past
"associations."

After listing the opposition and their records, AWARE concluded:
"Thus, out of 26 candidates on the independent' slate, at least 13
have what are considered significant public records in connection
with the Communist-front apparatus." In several cases, the charges
hardly substantiated a "significant public record." For one case of
a "less significant" record, an actor was accused of having "spent
some time after the war at the Hollywood Actors Lab," an actress
of having "studied at the Dramatic Workshop." "Publication
Number 12" concluded: "In the opinion of qualified observers, the
Independent' slate in AFTRA this year demonstrates the need for
a full-fledged official investigation of the entertainment industry in
New York."

It would be difficult to create a situation so favorable to AWARE'S
opposition. The "listing" of names, especially those charged with
only one activity, and the calling for a Congressional investigation
were bound to meet with the disapproval of the majority of
AFTRA's membership. "Publication Number 12" had the effect
of uniting AFTRA members, and the unity was built on opposition
to AWARE. It was not long before the opposition was organized.

In March, 1955, a petition signed by a long list of AFTRA mem-
bers called for the condemnation of AWARE, Inc. The performers
charged:

Certain AFTRA union officials and members have openly associated
themselves with an outside organization (AWARE, Inc.) which prints
attacks upon AFTRA members and invites a Congressional investiga-
tion of the entire entertainment industry.

In detailing their charges against "Publication Number 12," they

155

wrote, "Isn't it common knowledge that such listings become black-
lists . . . injuring reputations, costing members jobs?"

It is essential in understanding this fight to realize that eleven
of the people who signed the petition invoked either the First or
Fifth Amendment at the House Un-American Activities Committee
hearing at Foley Square in August, 1955. At the same time, it
must be realized that the majority of those who opposed AWARE
at the membership meeting and in the referendum were not in any
sense "pro-Communist" but anti-AwARE.

AWARE implied that it recognized the situation when it defended
itself in a letter to AFTRA members in May, 1955. The letter
stated:

Some individuals may even have signed the letter [calling for the
condemnation of AWARE] in good faith, thinking they were "protect-
ing" certain other AFTRA members who, so the letter made it appear,
had been unjustly accused by AWARE of having Communist-front
records. The plain fact is that members of AFTRA with notorious
Communist-front records apparently succeeded in getting some unsus-
pecting AFTRAns to sign the letter with them, so that all of the signers,
guilty and innocent alike, would be in the same boat. Doesn't this
technique sound familiar to you? Doesn't it strike you as a "strange
coincidence" that many — too many — members of our profession have
suffered in the past through joining Communist fronts at the instigation
of the very same people who recently roped unsuspecting members
into signing that letter?

(This section of AWARE'S defense was interesting on two scores.
First, it recognized that the opposition was not simply Communist
but a combination of pro-Communists and non-Communists. Sec-
ondly, it could only be read as a not too veiled threat: Individuals
in the past have suffered by joining with these people; you have
joined with these people — the "therefore you will suffer" was not
stated. Here again, AWARE succeeded in creating even greater
hostility toward itself and made it all the easier for Communists to
enlist non-Communists in an anti-AwARE coalition. )

156

AWARE then went on to remark that "the letter deliberately
cited only the weakest items in the AWARE Bulletin and, just as
deliberately, omitted mention of other items of an extremely serious
nature. Certain candidates for office in AFTRA had done much
more than 'married a liberal.' They had married (and never
divorced themselves from) . . . notorious Communist-front
activities. . . ."

AWARE'S point was valid. Often the defense against charges of
communism in the industry is the counter-allegation that only
"innocent liberals" are attacked. This is not the case. But, un-
fortunately for AWARE, this was not the main point at issue. The
AFTRA membership had become disturbed over the whole tech-
nique of accusations, "listings" and implications of conspiratorial
"patterns."

At the end of May, the anti-AwARE forces within AFTRA were
able to increase their support. In a letter addressed to the member-
ship, they added names to their list of petitioners, widened their
base within the union, and, because of AWARE'S tactics, were better
able to muster their forces. Eventually, the inevitable took place:
AWARE was condemned at an AFTRA membership meeting and
later by referendum. Up to the last minute, the pro-AwARE forces
attempted to pitch the fight on a "Communist" versus "anti-
Communist" plane. Columnist Leon Racht, an AwARE-supporter,
wrote in the New York Journal- American on June 18, 1955: "This
department would like to sound the warning that a 'yes' vote in the
referendum would unsparingly condemn AWARE and would, in
effect, poke the Communist camel's nose under the tent of the
AFTRAns."

Racht's statement, and almost all the pro-AwARE defenses,
missed the point by a mile. What needed explaining was not why
the Communists in AFTRA were opposed to AWARE. That could
be assumed. The real question was why so many anti-Communists
were so bitterly opposed to an anti-Communist group. And here

157

responsibility has to be placed on AWARE'S own door-step. Its
tactics, the tone of its anti-communism, its association in the minds
of many with anti-unionism: these were the significant causes of
the "condemnation," rather than the machinations of a small group
of Communists. By placing the debate within AFTRA on an
either/or, "pro-Communist" or "anti-Communist" basis, and iden-
tifying true anti-communism with AWARE, the organization created
a climate in which the Communists could flourish.

As a result of these factional struggles, the unions in the enter-
tainment field were unable to offer any genuine resistance to
blacklisting.

One talent union, however, has resisted blacklisting: Actors
Equity Association, the organization of actors in the legitimate
theatre. By 1955, Equity was the only union in the entertainment
field which had a functioning anti-blacklisting committee and took
a forthright stand on the whole question.

The Communist problem had existed in Equity for many years
but never became the violently divisive question it was in other
talent unions. Because of this, it was possible for Equity to negoti-
ate an anti-blacklisting clause in its contract with the League of
New York Theatres.

In the late Thirties, Equity was divided on the same question
bedeviling other talent unions. One faction regarded Equity as
part of the general labor movement. Another faction wanted it to
be a professional association. A number of those later identified
with the right-wing "anti-Communist" side in union politics held
the latter position. And the Communists in Equity were a part of
the labor-oriented faction. Nevertheless, the struggle never became
as sharp in Equity as elsewhere.

A pre-war incident illustrated the Communist problem in Equity.
At a meeting on May 24, 1940, a motion was presented calling for
American neutrality: "For America's true and complete neutrality

158

on the world state today; against America's being dragged into war;
against the use of actors to further war sentiment; for a definite and
continuous and sincere effort on the part of our government to
solve the actor's unemployment problem. . . ." This was, of course,
the period of the Hitler-Stalin Pact. The American Communist
Party was pushing strongly for isolationism. As soon as the motion
was introduced, Equity Magazine reported: "There was a storm
of emotion aroused, for and against the motion. . . . Mr. Bert Lytell
ruled that the motion was out of order, from which ruling there was
an immediate appeal. The count of ballots which followed showed
that the chair had been sustained by a vote of 88 to 57."

As a result of the argument over this motion, seven members of
the Equity Council were accused of being Communists on the floor
of the House of Representatives. One of the actors accused issued
a statement to the Associated Press denying any connection with,
or sympathy for, the Communist Party. Later, the Congressman
who made the accusation admitted that this particular actor was
probably only an "innocent stooge" and not an actual Party mem-
ber. Shortly after the attack, the actor was not nominated for
re-election to the Equity Council because "it was felt that his re-
election would not be for the best interests of the membership of
Equity. ..." (The chairman of the nominating committee which
took this position was later blacklisted in the movies on the grounds
of pro-communism. )

The storm continued throughout the Equity elections. The New
York World-Telegram reported that most informed people "dis-
count completely the Red Angle and call the big struggle a re-
volt against the 'reactionary, old Guard administration' by a sort
of New Deal group of actors who want to see Equity climb out of
the rut. The consistently anti-Administration group of past years
and whatever Communists are in Equity are off in a corner in the
role of spectators." After the election, in which the independent
ticket scored significant successes, two vice presidents and eight

159

Council members resigned from their Equity positions as a protest
against "subversive elements" in the union. In their statement of
resignation, they declared:

For years we have been struggling against an influence in our asso-
ciation which seemed to us subversive of American ideals and insti-
tutions. We have seen this element change Equity more and more
from a Guild of Professionals, working for the best interests of the
theatre as a whole, to a labor union of different objectives."

During this period, Equity itself demanded a Congressional in-
vestigation of alleged Communist activity in the theatre. In 1941,
Bert Lytell, President of Equity, sent a wire to the acting chairman
of the Dies Committee, urging the Committee to investigate Equity
as soon as possible. Congressman Lambertson, who had made the
original charge against the Equity members, also pressed for a
probe. But in August, 1941, a Congressman said: "Just about the
nearest I have ever come in my life to confessing a sense of utter
futility has been in connection with my unceasing efforts to have the
Lambertson charges . . . heard by the Dies Committee."

The incident was more or less closed in 1942 when Equity passed
a constitutional amendment which read:

Under the provisions of this section members of certain specified
parties, groups and organizations whose activities are deemed inimical
to the best interest of the Actors Equity Association and its members;
or of parties, groups and organizations which may hereafter be so
deemed by the Council, are barred from holding office in or being
employed by Equity. The right to membership in Equity of members
of these parties, groups or organizations, is not, however, affected.

The amendment indicated that the overwhelming majority of Equity
members were opposed to communism. In later years, even stronger
motions were passed, including one of outright condemnation of
communism.

This dispute in 1940-41 is typical of the struggles that have taken
place in the talent unions. On one side, the New Dealish faction
fought to make Equity more of a labor union. On the other, the

160

"conservative" faction demanded a professional association. In
later years, the positions actors took in these debates were used
against them as accusations in radio-television screening. In all of
this, Equity resembled other unions. A significant difference, how-
ever, was the conscious, and successful, attempt in Equity to present
politically balanced slates.

After Red Channels and the Jean Muir and Phil Loeb cases,
there was agitation hi Equity for some kind of anti-blacklisting
machinery. A motion proposed stated that Equity would fight
against blacklisting and that the politics of its members was of no
concern to the Association. This the Council rejected. Instead, a
motion was passed placing Equity on record as opposed to both
communism and fascism, and then an anti-blacklisting committee
was formed. During the same period, there was a proposal to nego-
tiate a collective-bargaining agreement with the League of New
York Theatres, which would have referred blacklist cases to union
arbitration.

The final agreement did not make blacklisting a matter for union
arbitration. Instead, the League of New York Theatres proposed
a joint union-management statement of opposition. The willing-
ness of the theatre owners to come out against blacklisting was
strongly criticized by Counterattack. The fact that blacklisting was
not made a matter of union arbitration was, however, disappointing
to some members of Equity. Counterattack felt that the agreement
indicated a "softness toward communism" on the part of manage-
ment. The anti-blacklisting group in Equity regarded the agree-
ment of joint cooperation as a watering-down of its original
proposals.

In actual practice, the Equity-League of New York Theatres
agreement has been a moral rather than a practical force. On the
one hand, as a statement of principle, it was strong enough to draw
Counterattack's fire. But it has rarely been invoked, largely because
there are so few actual cases in the theatre.

161

In the early days, both the Radio Writers Guild and AFTRA
created committees to handle the blacklisting problem. All three
unions in New York banded together in an inter-union liaison. But
within a few years, the Radio Writers Guild was out of existence,
and the leadership of AFTRA passed into the hands of people more
or less sympathetic to political screening. For these and other
reasons the inter-union committee collapsed.

AFTRA, the organization of radio and television artists, elected
a new "middle of the road" slate of candidates in December, 1955.
It is generally felt in the industry that the election represented a
defeat for both extremist camps, left and right. The December,
1955 election was widely interpreted to mean that the fate of the
union at long last was in the hands of reasonable and moderate
stewards — the middle-of-the-road group which for too long had
been absent from the scene, leaving the extremists of left and right
to dominate. In March, 1956 the new directors of the union re-
solved to formally notify all talent employers — networks, stations,
advertising agencies, independent producers, etc. — that the union
would take "appropriate action" against an employer who dis-
criminates against an artist on the basis of charges made by AWARE
or any similar organization.

162

Some Interviews

EXCERPTS FROM A REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK*

Interview with a radio-television producer

I know Harry personally. He told me when we met for lunch
that had we not been friends he would have declined to see me, on
the basis of being "too busy." He feels unable to say anything for
the record.

This is the way the system works at Harry's network. He has an
assistant named Joe. When a writer, director, musician, performer
or guest star is being considered for Harry's program, Joe calls an
extension number at the network's headquarters and turns in the
name. Later Joe gets a return call from the mysterious person at
the other end of the wire, who tells him whether the artist being
considered for employment is "available" or "not available." Now
it happens from time to time that a "not available" artist has just
left Harry's office and Harry knows that he or she is available. But
the euphemism is generally understood and accepted. It all works
very smoothly. As a producer Harry does not actually participate
in any checking procedure.

Harry thinks the lists are "screwy" and that the blacklisters are
"misguided" and do not understand what they are doing. As far
as he personally is concerned, he'd use everybody — he does not

* These interviews were granted to a member of the research staff on condition
that names would not be used. Names here used are fictitious.

163

see what harm they could do, even if they wanted to. But he would
feel "uncomfortable" about using someone he knew for sure to
be a Communist, "for the simple reason that I can't separate my
political views from my creative work." (I understood this to mean
that communism is abhorrent to him and that having a bona fide
Communist around would make him uncomfortable.)

"Morale in the industry," Harry feels, "has been badly affected"
— perhaps, he corrected himself, the word "aspiration" would be
more accurate than "morale." The industry is little more now than
a way to make money; most of the creative satisfactions have been
eliminated. "You do what is safer, not better," Harry says. "You
have to worry how this or that will be taken by the blacklisting
crowd."

In Harry's view, the saddest aspect is not the comparatively few
people who have been deprived of work. The really bad thing has
to do with the content and quality of the programs on tv and radio,
"the greatest cultural force since the printing press." The medium's
full potential is not being fulfilled — the industry is hag-ridden by
fear.

Interview with a Network Executive

"Remember we're in the business of selling time to advertisers.
It is not up to us to disprove allegations against people who want to
work for us. If someone feels he has been unfairly treated he can
come in and talk things over — he'll get a hearing. But some
people would rather lick their sores than come in and clear matters
up. They say they won't 'explain' themselves to anyone. (He
mentioned the husband of a well-known actress.) All right, then,
let them pay the price.

"The problem is different at a newspaper like The New York
Times. If they lose an advertiser, they can get another one. But
our network has enormous sums of money tied up with one indi-
vidual sponsor. We agree to help sell his product. If having this

164

one or the other on the air hurts his product, we're not living up
to our end of the bargain."

Morale hi the industry: "It bothers me. I'm not an easily in-
timidated man, and yet this is the only subject I know of that I do
not feel free to discuss. It bothers me."

An Actors Agent

Call him Bart.

"The worst aspect," Bart said, "is that there are so many differ-
ent lists and you never know who is on which list. You have to find
out by trial and error."

I asked him if, when he decides to take an actor as a client, he
checks the name against any of the blacklists. "I feel very guilty
about it," he said, "but I really have to. I call people informally
at the networks and check around. You know, you pick up little
scraps of information."

Bart told me about an actor friend of his, call him Bill Stix.
Stix had been doing very well on tv until one day he realized
offers had stopped coming in. He had never belonged to any or-
ganization of any kind and had taken no part in any political
activity so he could not understand why he was blacklisted. One
day he discovered that another actor who had worked in the Group
Theatre — call him Ted Stick — was "controversial." After a while
he got CBS to agree that it was hi fact a case of mistaken identity
and went back to work.

Another of Bart's stories concerned a girl who not long ago was
one of the busiest ingenues in town. She was appearing in a Broad-
way show when she was blacklisted for tv. "She wasn't even old
enough to vote yet," Bart said. "But there had been a petition
floating around backstage, for Willie McGee, and she signed it.
She was in rehearsal for a tv show and got pulled off when the
Daily Worker came out with a story listing the people who had
signed the petition. It was a year before she worked on tv again,

165

though she had about 300 performances to her credit. Finally
she broke down in the office of a network executive one day and
they decided to help her. She was asked to sign some paper, a
loyalty oath or something — and then she was cleared. But she still
couldn't work on some 'tough' shows. Maybe for other reasons
or maybe because of this, she just quit acting and now works as a
secretary."

Bart thought that all the lists and the listers were "equally
harmful." He is bothered because the public "does not understand
that there really is no very substantial basis for these lists." He
said he did not believe in lists of any kind. "The sooner we get
away from them, the better."

Interview with a labor consultant

Bernard is close to the industry, though not a part of it. I asked
if he thought blacklisting was necessary. "I've been involved in
fighting communism ever since I was a kid," Bernard said. "We
were Socialists, and there weren't many of us around. There were
times, back in the late Thirties, when guys like me had a hard time
getting any breaks in radio. . . . Most of us have changed our ideas
radically since those days, so I know that people do change. I did
myself. Even those who were late in changing ought to be given
a chance. . . . But if I were a producer I wouldn't hire Paul Robeson
because my show would have to live on its commercial appeal and
I could not afford to endanger the sponsor's product. A guy who
uses the Fifth Amendment is almost as controversial as a known
Communist — and a mass media program cannot be so above the
conflicts of the marketplace as all that." Maybe some who use the
Fifth Amendment do so for reasons of principle, Bernard said, but
that puts them in the twilight zone. "Living by unpopular principles
can be expensive and they have to pay, like a conscientious
objector."

Bernard recalled the case of a Japanese musician who was work-

166

ing for one of the big networks at the time of Pearl Harbor. This
man had given long evidence of his loyalty to the United States.
He had donated his services many times to democratic causes.
"People went to bat for him, but it didn't help any. He lost his
job when feeling against the Japanese ran high."

I asked about morale in the industry. Bernard said that "black-
listing breeds its own contempt." He said it was bad business to
turn the authority for hiring and firing over to a group of self-
appointed experts outside the industry.

Interview with a television director

Clayton once had his own troubles. His name was on a widely
publicized "list." He was later cleared. He was anxious that his
name not be brought up again, so I agreed to keep the interview
anonymous.

Clayton confirmed our information that one network does its
blacklisting euphemistically by using the "available" tag. He thinks
that in practice there is no criterion which can be applied without
injuring innocent people. "Personally, though, if I were choosing
between two equally talented people and one was a Communist,
or I thought he was a Communist, I would use the non-Communist,
because I don't like the Communist mentality."

About the "lists" and "listers" who have so much influence,
Clayton said: "They all are pretty reprehensible and incredibly
inaccurate. I could have sued the guy who 'listed' me but the case
would have taken four years to get to court — and then there is
the difficulty in establishing proof of libel. Some of these people
are very careful in choosing their words. . . ." As a general thing,
Clayton believes, the blacklisting operation encourages people to
vent their personal resentments — "it's a kind of hate-machine."

Clayton talked about what he called the "predisposed" mentality.
You can find evidence of Communist-thinking in almost anything
if you are determined to find it, he believes. He gave two illustra-

167

tions of this: One ad man talking with another over lunch said,
"Why do you always use stories about a little man against a big
setup — it's Communist-like thinking!" Actually, Clayton argued,
the theme dates back at least to the ancient Greeks. The second
illustration was from a program presented on "You Are There,"
a CBS television show which dramatizes historical events. This
particular program was concerned with Galileo's recantation. It
was all very carefully worked out beforehand in order to keep
the facts straight and still not offend anyone; it was checked and
approved by local clergymen before it went on the air. Nowhere
was it either stated or implied that Galileo was tortured to exact
his recantation. Still CBS got a letter from a priest denouncing
the "Communist" implication that Galileo had been tortured.

Clayton feels that some sort of arbitration may be the answer
to the problems created by blacklisting. However the talent unions
have to be discounted since free speech is practically ruled out
there — people who denounce blacklisting on the floor at union
meetings may be subject to blacklisting for that very reason. But
in many cases of clear injustice — mistaken identity, a wife or
husband blacklisted because of the partner's associations, etc. —
arbitration could be most effective. Now, he said, it can take as
long as two years for an actor to clear himself in a case of mistaken
identity. He knew of such a case.

Change for the better, he said, has to begin at the topmost level.

Telephone interview with an advertising agency vice president

I knew Charlie years ago. He has come up in the world since.
After I had explained my reason for calling, the conversation went
something like this :

"You happen to have picked an issue on which I personally
would not want to comment . . . (silence). . . . You should talk to
the vice president in charge of public relations — as a matter of fact
you should talk to the President himself."

168

"Well, Charlie, can I quote you as saying this is a subject on
which you do not wish to comment?"

"Definitely not! You're not taking all this down, are you?"

"I'm just making a note that I've spoken to you, and what
your view is."

"I haven't any views on this. [Charlie's voice suggested
concern.] There may be many reasons why the agency may not
wish to participate in this — ah, investigation. These interviews
consume an awful lot of time, for one thing. ... I always advise
those who want to get ahead in the ad business not to be throwing
their names around in print anywhere."

Interview with a network program director

Fred did not indicate any anxiety about the problem. His
manner was relaxed and casual. I took it that this was the attitude
he was intent on getting across. Fred keeps no "list" himself and
does not check writers or actors he wants to use. There is no
need — "We're prudent and careful." He sees the American
Legion's Firing Line regularly but never reads Counterattack or
any of the other anti-Communist publications which specialize in
"listing." Occasionally, when he is not quite sure of someone, he
talks things over with the network's legal department people.

Fred would not, of course, employ a writer or actor who was
generally known as a Communist. "I wouldn't use Paul Robeson."
I asked how he would know for sure that someone was a Commu-
nist. He said, "Oh, I know." The attitude of the average sponsor,
he said, was best summed up this way: "Why should we have any
trouble? There are a lot of other actors around."

"I've used some people who were a little hot, on religious pro-
grams, and nothing happened. I don't believe in using people just
because they are in trouble. I tell the boys working for me to aim
for the best possible show they can get. I tell them that they should
not go out of their way to be heroes or make a case out of being

169

brave. . . . Actually a good number of those who are in trouble
aren't particularly talented. There are many mediocre writers and
actors among them. But take J. H., she is good and we have used
her. We've also used some writers who are under attack. We don't
follow any kind of rule."

Fred held that the situation had been blown up all out of pro-
portion. "A few have been hurt," he said, "but the sound and
fury just isn't warranted by the facts."

The transition from radio to television came at just about the
same time as "this situation," he said. People who were successful
in radio are not always the best bet for television, a visual medium.
Consequently, some radio veterans are not working just because
they are not tv material. "This," Fred pointed out, "is part of the
picture." Another factor is that a few years ago, when the movies
were not hiring people because business in Hollywood was bad,
the talent market was glutted. Still another thing to remember, he
cautioned, is that actors and writers sometimes wear out. "Under-
stand, we have no continuing obligation to hire these people."

Regarding Red Channels, File 13 and the other "lists": Fred
said he did not believe in putting police power in private hands.
The Attorney General's list is helpful, though.

He could not recall any instance of the Communist Party's line
coloring a script, and quickly dismissed the possibility on the
familiar grounds that too many people screen a script before it
goes on the air.

Fred said he believed that since this is a free country, anyone has
a right to say anything he pleases but no one has a Constitutional
right to be popular — if an actor or a writer manages to get himself
unpopular, he may not work. It's one of the hazards of his trade.

Interview with a talent agent

Tom sells scripts, both on a contract and free-lance basis. He
has no copies of any of the "lists" in his office. But, he says, "You

170

never know when you will find out a writer is in trouble. Maybe
he'll work one place and not another, or he'll suddenly be cut off
from a series he's doing. You never know why, or on whose sayso.
One big advertising agency keeps a separate list for each of its
clients, another has a 'white list.' The networks differ on how the
situation should be handled."

"We had a recent experience," Tom said. "This writer had
been doing Studio One scripts and worked on other programs.
Suddenly we were told that a script of his couldn't be used on CBS."
The script editor told Tom "off the record" that the order came
from "upstairs." "I got the idea," Tom said. "My writer was on
at least one list. Why? I don't know and I don't think the writer
did, either. . . . It's like battling ghosts. Somebody tells you sadly,
'Isn't it a shame,' — and that's all you ever get to know about it."

Tom went on: "If a man were an official security risk, that
would be another matter. But I never hear about the FBI or the
Attorney General — all I ever hear about is Red Channels and this
Johnson of Syracuse and the other characters who have made a
business out of this thing. As a matter of fact, a friend of mine,
an FBI man, tells me that in time of emergency, they could round
up all the subversives in double quick time, because they know
who they are and where they are. If there are any real subversives
around who ought to be on lists, then it should be done openly
and efficiently by people with authority, not by quacks and screw-
balls. The trouble now is that just about everybody is on some list
or other. There is no clear definition. Liberals and subversives are
put in the same basket. Maybe this thing gets a few people who
are really subversive, but it gets a lot of innocent people, too."

Later: "The burden of proof is on the one accused. You have
to start 'explaining' something about yourself that you may not
even know about or remember. Where will all this end? Before
they get through, we'll have children testifying against their
parents."

171

I asked about the possibility of subversive content in radio and
television scripts. Tom said: "How can the content be subversive?
By the time a script gets on the air it has been passed by all kinds
of people, and believe me, if the implications are so subtle that
they can't be picked up after all that scrutiny, it's not going to hurt
anyone."

About the industry's morale: "Blacklisting has affected every
aspect of the industry. You'll see when you talk to people who
work in radio-tv. What happens? Writers write under other names,
or they split fees with other writers who are still in the clear. . . .
What can you write about, with all the suspicion and fear around?
What writer wants to stick his neck out and maybe be called a
subversive because he hasn't steered clear of social problems?"

About "controversial" performers: "I'll accept only official
government sources as authority. Some joined front organizations,
and so on, but what did it add up to? Actors just talk off the top
of their heads like emotional children. Those citations don't really
mean a thing."

172

Blacklisting Experiences

The following is a series of individual experiences with black-
listing. For obvious reasons, identifications have been withheld.

A LEADING ACTRESS

IN SEPTEMBER, 1948, Miss H., who was starring in a play in
Pittsburgh, spoke at a local rally sponsored by the Westinghouse
Workers for Wallace. The Wallace meeting, and Miss H.'s appear-
ance, were widely publicized. Variety reported that a "steady
stream of ticket holders" turned in their paste-boards for refunds
after the meeting, yet her play broke box-office records during
its run in the steel city.

In 1950, Miss H. was starred in a Kraft Theatre tv production.
In 1951, she was scheduled to appear on a tv program sponsored
by General Mills. Miss H. was listed in Red Channels, and protests
began to come in from Syracuse immediately after it was announced
she would star on this program. However, the cast rallied behind
her, the show went on the air as scheduled, and there was no im-
mediate boycott of General Mills products.

At the time the storm blew up, Miss H. wrote the executive
producer of the program: "I understand that some question has
been raised as to my loyalty to the United States, and I desire to
inform you categorically that I am not now nor have I ever been a
member of the Communist Party nor am I now in sympathy with
Communist objectives." But despite the statement, Miss H. was
cut off from television work after that.

173

She has been able to take part in radio interview programs but
in almost every case has received no fees. On one occasion,
during a radio interview, Miss H. referred to her "unpleasant ex-
periences" but her remarks were edited from the tape when the
show went on the air. More recently, she has taken part in a
documentary-type radio program on NBC. But she has yet to
return to television as a regular performer.

In 1952, the actress appeared in Washington, D. C. in the play
"Tovarich." The theatre was picketed by the American Legion,
and the picketing (reported in Variety) led several theatre man-
agers in other cities to cancel the play. Again, when Miss H.
appeared in a Theater Guild production, there were protests. The
protests did not, however, affect the run of the play or its box-office.

A few years ago it was announced that Miss H. was going to
be called by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. She
was subpoenaed but her testimony was delayed and she never did
appear. The Committee offered no explanation. Variety referred
to the incident as a "current Capitol Hill mystery."

In 1954, she was scheduled to speak at a conference at the Uni-
versity of Indiana. This appearance was cancelled by a wire
stating as the reason, "disturbing political publicity" in a news-
paper.

In November 1954, Miss H. was involved in plans to star on a tv
dramatic show. A short time before rehearsals got under way, the
producer called and asked her to withdraw voluntarily. His office,
the producer explained, had taken some chances on "risky people,"
and now thought it best to "mark time" for a while. He assured
Miss H. he would use her as soon as things let up. She agreed to
withdraw, but there were no more calls from this producer.

Miss H. is generally recognized as one of America's most dis-
tinguished actresses. She is still a young woman but is largely
cut off from the popular media. Lately she has been taking
drama students and employs her talents by coaching lesser actresses.

174

A RADIO ACTOR

K.L. noticed as early as 1947 that he had not worked on any
BBD&O shows for some time. He phoned a friend at that agency
and made an appointment to discuss the situation. Over the
luncheon table, K.L. was told he could not be used because some-
one had raised the question of his affiliation, in 1942, with the
Artists' Front to Win the War. The actor investigated and found
he had been on the radio the night that organization's only New
York rally was held; he learned too that he had never given the
group permission to use his name. As soon as he discovered these
facts about himself (until he checked he had not trusted his
memory), K.L. wrote a letter to the director of the BBD&O radio
series. Shortly after, he was signed for a BBD&O show but re-
ceived no calls from the agency after this one appearance. Six
months later he wrote to BBD&O again and succeeded in refuting
certain charges on file at the agency. Finally, he was able to work
on BBD&O shows regularly.

K.L. was not listed in Red Channels. But he noticed his employ-
ment was falling off during 1950 and part of '51, after Red Chan-
nels became "the Bible of Madison Avenue." Once again he made
an appointment to see a director at a big agency. He was told
he could not be used because various charges against him had
come up again. As a result of this talk, K.L. sent a letter to the
agency, stating his opposition to communism. Then an agency
executive called him and asked why he felt it necessary to write
such a letter. K.L. told the executive of the anxiety he felt. The
executive was sympathetic. Within half an hour the actor received
a call from the agency offering him a job.

In 1952, one of the agency people K.L. dealt with, called to
suggest he cooperate with a House Committee investigator who
was in New York. The actor agreed to see the investigator and
spent some time with him, most of it — K.L. says — devoted to

175

straightening out misinformation the investigator had picked up.

At a dinner party in 1953 both K.L. and a network television
producer were guests. The talk turned to blacklisting, and someone
asked the producer if K.L. was "employable." The producer said
bluntly that he couldn't use the actor on his network. This was
the first indication K.L. had that he was still "in trouble." Im-
mediately, he wrote to a personal friend high in the network and
asked the friend to check on the story. His friend assured K.L.
there was no cause for worry; the only reason he had not been
used on the network was because more actors than assignments
were available.

A year passed and K.L. still had not worked on the network. He
phoned another executive friend, and a conference with some well
known "anti-Communists" in the industry was arranged. As a
result of the conference, K.L. sent "clearance" letters around to the
proper people, was granted an interview with a network executive
in charge of "clearances." K.L. is now "employable." But he still
feels bitter about the months of uncertainty and unemployment he
experienced and says he will probably never feel truly secure again.

A RADIO-TV DIRECTOR

M.P. came to his network after blacklisting was institutionalized
but only gradually realized what was going on. His first experience
was with a show that had been blasted in Counterattack. At one
point, Laurence A. Johnson came to New York to protest against
an actor who had been used on this show. Johnson contacted the
advertising agency and sponsor; they referred him to the network,
which handled hiring for the particular program, but the pressure
on the network — and on the network staff — came primarily from
the agency and sponsor, not from Johnson directly. The sponsor
was particularly disturbed that the Syracuse grocer might campaign
against his product. He demanded that the network mollify
Johnson.

176

After considerable negotiations with Counterattack and Johnson,
the program was finally "cleared." But as a result of its difficulties,
it became a "tough" show in terms of political screening. A high
network official took a special interest in the program and laid down
strict requirements for every actor who appeared on it. The director
could no longer assemble his casts on a simple merit basis but had
to take political "screening" into account. Yet pains were taken
to keep the full extent of this screening secret. Though the director
knew he could not hire the obviously blacklisted — those "listed"
in Red Channels or Counterattack — he did not know that others
were being rejected for similar reasons.

At this time the network used the term "not available" in two
senses. Sometimes it meant an actor was booked up for a certain
date and was actually not available for other work. But it could
also mean that he had been screened off the show for political
reasons. It was some time before M.P. realized the double use of
the term. M.P. finally understood what was happening when he
was told that an actor was "not available" and met the actor
shortly thereafter only to find he was desperate for work. After
this M.P. sought out actors, checked on whether they were avail-
able, and then submitted their names on casting lists. Often, the
actors whose names he submitted would be crossed off as "not
available." At first the director did not believe that certain people
in the industry knew how extensive blacklisting had become, and
he took it upon himself to inform them. But he was told politely
it was none of his business. If he had any sense he'd stay out of
the whole mess, one executive advised him.

Occasionally, M.P., like other directors at the network, put up
a fight for a particular performer, arguing that he was necessary for
the success of the show. But they fought without success.

All this, M.P. remembers, was carried on in a kind of Aesopian
language which avoided the use of the word "blacklist." Discus-

177

sions were about "availability," or people would say, "Is he clean?"
"Is he o.k.?" etc.

Finally, M .P. says, the political check became routinized. There
were certain offices which received casting lists, certain secretaries
who would call and say that such and such a one was "not avail-
able." After a while the production staff gave up resisting. They
realized it was useless, for the blacklisting policy had been set at
the top level of the network.

AN ACTOR

In 1952, V.F. ran on an independent ticket hi Equity. As a
result of this, he says, his tv employment was largely cut off. Inter-
estingly enough, throughout the period of his blacklisting, roughly
during 1952, '53 and part of '54, he was used on one major net-
work show.

When he came into Equity, V.F. found the Communist issue had
caused bitter factional dissension on the Council. At one point,
he actively fought the imputation of "pro-Communist" sympathies
which some brought against the "liberal" bloc in the union. He did
this on the basis of voting records. He himself often voted "con-
servatively." At the same time he was being attacked from the
right for harboring "pro-Communist" sympathies, the left wing was
annoyed by many of the positions he took.

Finally, toward the end of 1954, V.F. noticed a change in the
atmosphere. He began to get calls for work on shows which had
not used him for over two years, though he had taken no steps to
clear himself. V.F. believes the change was a result of someone's
taking an interest in his case without telling him about it. Since,
over the years, he had made many anti-Communist statements on
the union floor, he feels that even the most cursory of checks
would have revealed that there was really no basis for blacklisting
him as a "pro-Communist."

After he was cleared, V.F. learned that rumors he was a Com-

178

munist were still being circulated, but apparently these reports did
not affect his employment. He is now employable throughout the
industry.

A DIRECTOR

Before Red Channels, J.R. had built up a considerable reputa-
tion in television. Even after Red Channels appeared, he was
hired by one of the largest packagers and given important duties
(his name was not listed in the book). J.R.'s first task was to
prepare a pilot kinescope for a new show. He did this using two
actors who had been listed in Red Channels. The kinescope was
successful, but when the first show of the series came up — it was
a repeat of the pilot — he was told he could not use the actors.
The packager's office was disturbed about this directive but placed
the blame on the advertising agency handling the show.

The show ran for 13 weeks. During this period, the director
hired people listed in Red Channels and others who were later
blacklisted. This was in 1951. The same year, he did another show
using two people who had been accused of "pro-Communist"
sympathies. At a conference, an agency man gave him a copy of
Red Channels and told him to be careful about hiring the people
"listed" in it. But there was no attempt to fire the performers he
had scheduled for the show.

In the fall of 1951, the director returned to work for the same
packager. Red Channels by this time was being taken more
seriously — no one "listed" in it could be hired. Final approval of
casting lists had also been switched to the front office in order to
insure that no one politically suspect would get on the air. At the
very time that this was happening, an agency representative told J.R.
that there was no blacklisting on his agency's shows. But when the
director announced his intention of using a certain actor, the same
agency man told him he could not because of "pressure."

In the winter of 1952, J.R. found that the list of "unemploy-

179

ables" was expanding. Red Channels was no longer the sole source
of information. Many people who were not listed in that book
were nonetheless "unavailable" for work.

The director even learned that accusations were being made
against him. Some of the shows he had directed in the past were
charged against him. Laurence Johnson intervened directly. John-
son contacted the sponsor of one of the shows this director was
working on. At first the company felt that the director was "de-
fensible" and decided to ignore the charges. But later they
changed their position and the director's future became doubtful.

Earlier, J.R. had been offered a job at one of the major net-
works. In view of his uncertain status, he decided to take it. The
contract was signed in the spring of 1952. A loyalty oath was
sent to J.R. and he signed it. But after this, he was called into the
office of a network executive who confronted him with a series of
charges. The director felt the executive was anticipating trouble.
During one of their interviews, the executive pointed to Elia
Kazan's ad in The New York Times repudiating his past political
associations and told J.R.: "Well, that's one way."

Shortly after these discussions, the director was fired. For a
while, he continued to get phone calls about work, but the deals
always fell through.

For some time now, he has been unable to work in the industry
under his own name. From time to time, he has helped in the
preparation of shows but receives no credit and is personally paid
by the producer. In 1951, the director's income from television was
$35,000; in 1952, $12,000 for television and all other work; in
1953, between $8,000 and $9,000.

AN AGENT

Miss K., an actors' agent, feels that one of the main problems is
the psychological impact blacklisting has on her clients. Fear, she
feels, produces uncertainty and inhibits the actor in his work.

180

Thus, even if she is finally able to place a blacklisted performer,
psychological difficulties arise.

There are often rumors about clients. The agency cannot track
each of them down, but if they become persistent, the agent has
to check to find out if her client is indeed blacklisted. This is
done informally, through personal contacts, and the information
given is rarely straightforward. Generally, Miss K. has nothing
but hints and innuendos to go on.

In some cases, a producer will call an agency and ask for a "star,"
describing the kind of person he wants. When no particular per-
former is named, the agent can test a client's acceptability by sub-
mitting his name.

Miss K. has found a tendency on the part of some performers
to claim they have been blacklisted when the real reason for their
unemployability lies in lack of talent, advanced age, etc. In sev-
eral cases, she has tried to help performers get a more realistic
picture of their situation and has succeeded in convincing them that
they are not blacklisted.

The agent is willy-nilly involved in the problem of "clearance,"
Miss K. points out. If a client cannot work, the agent may check
around to see what can be done for him. Miss K., for example,
helped one actor get an engagement from a veterans group, and this
ultimately facilitated his being cleared. She feels that her most
important duty is to help her blacklisted clients weather their bad
period without letting go of their artistic ambitions.

RADIO WRITER

Blacklisting, according to W.Z., a Communist sympathizer, is
really an attack on New Deal values. During the period of the
New Deal, W.Z. says, actors and writers, along with the whole
entertainment world, were engaged in creative and "socially con-
scious" work. Unions grew up. There was an alliance on the part
of theatrical people with the "progressive" forces in society. This

181

continued throughout World War II, when the industry made a
considerable contribution to the war effort. W.Z. claims that many
have been blacklisted as a "punishment" for their activity in this
"New Deal movement." He does not specifically mention Commu-
nists as being among them.

The motives of the pro-blacklisting faction, W.Z. holds, are
union-busting, anti-New Dealism and reaction in general. In cer-
tain cases, these motives are linked with racism — anti-Semitism,
and hostility against the Negro performer — so that the blacklisting
movement actually verges on fascism. Many of those who had
once been on the side of the "progressive" forces capitulated and
went over to Senator McCarthy when the national mood changed,
W.Z. claims bitterly.

However, W.Z. is fairly tolerant of the businessmen who actually
run the industry. He feels that they are reacting out of confusion
and a desire to retain their jobs and positions. They are not as
reprehensible as the artists who have gone through "clearance"
and now actively oppose "liberalism" and "democracy." W.Z.
reserves his utmost scorn for those who have cleared themselves.

Blacklisting, W.Z. insists, has crippled artistic inventiveness.
The shows produced today do not have the "creative social con-
science" they had before political screening got under way. Writers,
producers, actors and directors no longer have general artistic
discussions, he claims. "Political conformism" has entered every
corner of the industry and made meaningful exchange impossible.
Suspicion lurks in every office on Madison Avenue.

W.Z. is pessimistic. He feels blacklisting will be brought to an
end only when there is a massive political shift within the United
States, i.e., when there is a general resurgence of the "progressive
forces" which, according to him, pervaded the Thirties. Until this
happens, W.Z. says, he will be blacklisted, though others, against
whom the charges are not so extensive, may find their way back to
work. W.Z. is convinced the threat to his personal values will

182

disappear only when it is possible for a show to go on the air with
a whole group of people listed in Red Channels.

W.Z. has been totally blacklisted for over four years. He had
been a successful and well-paid employee of the industry and took
an active part in union affairs. (His views, as might be expected,
are a faithful recording of the official Communist Party line on
blacklisting.)

PRODUCER

N.R. produced a series written by a man who was eventually
listed in Red Channels. After Red Channels was published, protests
came in, among them an angry one from an American Legion
group. The sponsor was deeply upset.

For a while, after Red Channels, there was chaos in the industry,
N.R. says. Actors were turned down "almost at random." No
reason was given. Some clearances did not come in until the
very last minute — in one case a "non-clearance" did not arrive
until after the person had been on the air, and this precipitated a
crisis. There was a feeling at the time, N.R. says, that there was
no logic in what was happening. "It was out of Kafka." But after
a time, things settled down. Procedures were worked out and
blacklisting was run like a well-oiled machine.

The production-office people would submit the casting list to
a person at the agency whose identity they did not know. Some-
time later, they would receive a phone call and the names would
be read back with a "yes" or "no" check. Because of the problems
involved in the "no's," the producers took the precaution of send-
ing in many more names than they could use. In this way they
hoped to assemble the full casts they needed. In the case of talented
people they wanted to use, they would frequently re-submit names
to see if things had changed.

NBC, according to N.R., began with the most contradictory
screening process. For a time, executives at the network simply

183

ignored calls dealing with blacklisting. Finally the network or-
ganized its "screening" on a more stable basis. The job was
given to the legal department. Now when a call comes hi from
a production staff, a dossier, containing only derogatory informa-
tion, is sent to the producer. If the charges are fairly foolish, it is
possible to use the person, although this can be done only after
consultation with an executive. The NBC legal department is
willing to discuss its operation and can be convinced to take a
chance.

Some pro-blacklisting elements in the industry, N.R. believes,
have become politicized to such an extent that they constitute a
nuisance. They are forever circulating petitions, arguing, even
checking on their co-workers. As a result, producers are reluctant
to hire them. This, he emphasizes, is not because of their politics
per se — others who agree with them have no employment prob-
lem — but results from the manner in which they put forth their
politics. Ironically, their militant crusade to screen "controversial"
talent out of the industry has made them "controversial" themselves.

AN ACTRESS

Miss B. is the sister of a leading movie star. Her own career
got under way in the late Forties. Before 1950, Miss B. was in
demand on television. But during this period she was appearing
on Broadway in a hit play and did not accept much outside work.
She was generally considered a promising young actress.

In the fall of 1950, Miss B. began to believe she was blacklisted.
She made the Madison Avenue rounds, saw people, talked with her
agents, but to no avail. She could find no work. At this time, she
received a phone call from a friend who told her she had been black-
listed. She checked with a writer working on a major television
show. He also reported she was blacklisted, as did two producer
friends. All of them assumed that she was "unemployable" on
CBS shows.

184

Miss B.'s attempts to get in touch with various network people
were futile. She was told, "He's not in," or her phone calls simply
went unanswered. She contacted her agents but they could not
suggest anything. Most of her advisers simply told her to wait
until the whole thing blew over.

The actress searched her memory to discover what might have
led to her being blacklisted. She recalled she had agreed to sponsor
the Waldorf Peace Conference. At the time the Conference was
held, she was working in her first big Broadway play. She says she
was flattered that anybody would want her name and that many
of her friends were signing the letter of sponsorship, so she signed.
During the same period, she was active in organizing opposition to
a quiz show which featured young Broadway actors and actresses
and paid them with $10 and a watch. Miss B. felt that the young
performers were being exploited, and the talent union officers
agreed with her. The protests were so effective, the program went
off the air. She wondered if this, too, could have contributed to
her being blacklisted as a "troublemaker."

Soon after Miss B. learned she was blacklisted, she stopped
working in order to have a baby. She did not look for work again
until late in 1952 and then found she was still unable to get em-
ployment on television. However, in February, 1953, she received
a call for a movie part. She signed a contract and sent a letter to
the studio which "explained" her sponsorship of the Waldorf Peace
Conference and denied she was ever a member of a subversive
organization. The studio was evidently satisfied, for she worked
in two pictures that year.

When Miss J5.'s first movie was released, there was considerable
publicity. She appeared as a guest on a number of television shows
but still failed to get an acting job on tv. In 1954, Miss B. went to
Hollywood and made another movie. When she returned to New
York, she made further attempts to find tv work, but they were
fruitless. Finally, she decided to take the bull by the horns. She

185

made an appointment with Alfred Berry, "security officer" at CBS.

In the conversation with Berry, the word "blacklist" was not
used. They spoke of "unavailability." Berry talked to her about
the need CBS had to protect itself. When Miss B. told him about
her letter to the movie studio, he said he would check on it.

At a later meeting, the actress was told that four items were held
against her: she had sponsored the Waldorf Peace Conference; she
was reported in the Daily Worker as having attended an American
Labor Party ball; she was a sponsor of a pro-Communist meeting
in Mexico City; and she had signed the Willie McGee petition.
She asked what she could do to clear herself of these charges.
Berry suggested that she see someone from the American Legion.

Berry also suggested that she make some public anti-Communist
statements and associate herself with a few anti-Communist
"causes." She need not interpret this, he assured her, as meaning
far right-wing groups. After this, Miss B. went to a prominent
attorney. Under his direction, she wrote a letter "explaining" the
associations which got her "in trouble."

Miss B.'s efforts have had some success. She has appeared on
sponsored television shows and her "explanations" have apparently
been accepted. However, the most important period in her career
was lost. At a point when she might rightfully have expected to
land major roles, she was "unemployable" because of the four
charges against her.

AN ACTOR

F.T. has played in several important movies. He also has a
long background in radio, and worked on television in its early days.
In the spring of 1952, F.T. finished a picture in Hollywood. Im-
mediately after this, he was replaced in a forthcoming role by some-
one else. He had a conversation with an executive at the studio
who asked him pointblank, "Are you a Communist?" F.T. told the
executive he wasn't. The executive then told the actor that the

186

American Legion Post #41 in Syracuse, New York, was "after"
him. He mentioned a whole series of charges, and predicted a
bleak prospect for future employment unless F.T. cleared himself.

Back in New York, F.T. found a part in a Broadway play but
got no television work. A friend of his who had been "in trouble"
and cleared himself offered to put him in touch with George
Sokolsky. The actor accepted the offer, but nothing came of it.
Later some films he had made prior to getting in trouble were
shown on television, and there were more attacks from Syracuse.

During the next few years, F.T. could not work on television.
Once, he was reading for a part with a CBS director when another
director came in. The second director realized the mistake the
first was making and told the actor he was "too good for the part."
He was not hired. By this time, F.T. decided it was necessary to
clear himself with CBS. He went, unannounced, to Daniel O'Shea's
office, was directed to Alfred Berry, and discussed his problem
there.

Berry based the network's case against F.T. on charges found
in Counterattack and the Firing Line. He mentioned the actor's
work at an off-Broadway theatre, his appearance at the funeral of
J. Edward Bromberg,* his signing the Willie McGee petition, and
detailed a charge which the actor denied. When he was finally
convinced that F.T. was not a Communist, Berry asked him for a
"letter." He explained that the network had to have one on file in
order to defend F.T. if pressure started again.

F.T. said he was fearful of some of his off-Broadway connec-
tions. Many blacklisted writers, actors and directors have taken to
the off-Broadway stage. In some cases, association with people
in these productions, or appearance in a play with a political line,
has turned up later in a dossier or has been used as a charge in one

* Bromberg, a prominent actor in both Hollywood and New York, was listed in
Red Channels.

187

of the anti-Communist newsletters. Because of this, FT. now
hesitates to take certain jobs.

Even though F.T. does not appear on television, he had a
major network radio role in 1955. His experience is similar to
that of other blacklisted actors who have discovered that they can
get a job on a radio show though they are barred from employment
at the same network's television studios. However, at the present
time, F.TVs income is far below his pre-1952 earnings and he has
no immediate prospect of finding work.

JOURNALIST

One of the top journalists in the radio-television field gave his
impressions of the blacklisting problem. This is how he saw it:

To begin with, he said, one must understand the actor. Before
the New Deal, actors were notoriously apathetic about politics.
When they got "political" in the Thirties, they were naive and
believed they could "sound off' with no consequences. Red Chan-
nels, the journalist remarked, is a book listing the most gregarious
people in the industry, the joiners, much more than it is a compila-
tion of actual Communists.

There was, he says, no Communist propaganda on radio and
there is none on television. In the course of producing a script, it
is checked for conformity to network policy, it goes through script
editors, continuity acceptance, etc. Even during the war, there
were people in the industry who were conscious of the Communist
Party line and watched out for propaganda. Interestingly enough,
he points out, many of the shows produced during the war with
themes that would now be considered too hot to handle were
initiated by the Advertising Council.

The McCarran report on communism in the radio-tv unions,
this journalist feels, completely oversimplified a complex situation.
The actual Communist membership in the industry was always
small; the real battle was between "conservatives" and "liberals."

188

He considers the Report a "pretty dirty piece of work" which
omitted much of the information necessary to an understanding
of the problem. He feels that some of those most vociferous in the
industry in charging various people with "communism" are lacking
in talent and have taken this means to express their frustration.

CBS, he said, got into trouble because of its relatively low-budget
operation. Unable to match the tremendous financial resources of
NBC, CBS relied on "brains," specifically through an emphasis
on documentaries and social themes. When radio-tv blacklisting
began, CBS had the greatest number of people "in trouble" — and,
as a result, CBS set up the most drastic network security program.

From the point of view of radio-tv columnists, the journalist
said, blacklisting has been a frustrating story. Performers frequently
come to newspaper columnists with accounts of their experiences,
but then, almost to a man, demand anonymity. Because of this,
the writer is unable to report their cases, and a situation which
everyone hi the industry knows about, never gets a public airing.

Finally, this journalist believes that the pressure is lifting some-
what; a few sponsors and network shows have become more coura-
geous, and the whole industry is simply becoming "bored" with
blacklisting. Unless a new case comes along to make the argument
for blacklisting more plausible, the practice has already reached its
peak, he feels.

AN ACTOR

K.Y. is a top star in all the entertainment media. He learned
indirectly that he was "in trouble" at the major networks and lead-
ing advertising agencies and determined to do something about it.
The "security officer" at CBS provided K.Y. with the list of
"charges" against him which that network had on file.

The following charges had been filed:
1. He had been on the executive board of the Actors' Lab. (True.

He was a member "very briefly.")

189

2. He had performed in a show sponsored by the Hollywood Inde-
pendent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences and Profes-
sions. (Absolutely false. K.Y. never heard of such a show. He
checked the cast list for the show in Variety. His name did not
appear. )

3. Identified by a government witness as having attended meetings
of the same organization. (False. K.Y. never attended a meeting
of the organization in his life.)

4. Spoke for continuing 1945 movie strike and defended Herbert
Sorrell. Prominent member of the Motion Picture Alliance for
the Preservation of American Ideals was cited as authority. (Ab-
solutely false. K.Y. was involved in a movement to end the
strike.)

5. Signed full-page ad against the Parnell Thomas investigation of
Hollywood. (Absolutely false. K.Y. checked the ad. His name
was not listed.)

6. Not listed in Appendix IX. Name appears in Myron Pagan's Red
Stars Over Hollywood. (K.Y. did not understand the reference. )

7. Participated in Thought Control Conference held by Hollywood
Arts, Sciences and Professions Council in 1947. (Absolutely
false. K.Y. took no part in the Conference and had nothing to
do with the organization. )

K.Y. kept a diary:

Sunday: Saw network head. He asked me to continue program into
next season.

Monday: Told I cannot be cleared by advertising agency. Show is in
difficulty . . . Dinner with friends. They say they've known about
the situation for two or three months but did not want to worry me.
Told me some of the charges against me.

Monday: (A week later) Show attacked in Hearst paper.

Wednesday: Learned the name of the "clearance" man at the adver-
tising agency.

Thursday: Network gets nine calls about the show. Five are favorable;

190

four complaints. Program is described as "pink," "too much political
innuendo," and "cleverly concealed Communist propaganda." First
time any such comments have come in. Network — and I — both
believe they are a direct result of the story in Hearst paper.
Sunday: Show cannot get sponsor for next season. Negotiations for
two other shows collapse completely.

After K.Y., armed with his rebuttal, started to make the "clear-
ance" rounds, he reported in his diary:

Monday: Meeting with "clearance" man at advertising agency. He
assures me that the agency does not consider me subversive. He
will see what they can do about putting me on one of their "prestige"
shows. These shows less susceptible to pressure groups.

Tuesday: Meeting with executive at the "other" network. They made
a check last summer and are satisfied that there is nothing to the
charges against me. Executive suggested meeting with another
agency "clearance" man . . . Still another agency "clearance" man
called to say he had read my statement and checked with the top
"clearance" man on Madison Avenue. They too are satisfied now.
But one sponsor — who supposedly uses Hartnett's services — is still
holding out.

Wednesday: Met with an agency "clearance" man for a general dis-
cussion of "the problem." No more trouble at that agency, he
assures me.

Thursday: Got an offer through the agency I visited yesterday. They've
really had a change of heart. I was turned down for this very show
not more than a month ago.

Friday: Yet another agency "clearance" man wants a copy of my
statement and answer to the charges. Guess I'm "clear" now.

191

Industry Viewpoints

IN THE MAIL

A DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE* was sent to leading networks, spon-
sors, advertising agencies and actors' agents. Many did not reply.
The following statements represent a cross-section of the industry
viewpoints elicited by the questions.

We would never knowingly engage a Communist for any of our
radio or television programs. Also, we would never knowingly engage
anyone who aids either directly or indirectly the Communist cause. We
carry out this policy in the employment of literally thousands of people
in connection with our radio and television programs . . .

From a statement of policy issued by the

Procter and Gamble Company

Our company would not, knowingly, lend aid or moral support to
persons who subscribe to subversive teachings. Where subversive guilt
is clearly established, we would have no hesitancy in refusing to hire
the guilty party, but we would be running contrary to one of our
country's most ancient and noble traditions — i.e. that a person is inno-
cent until proven guilty, if we, as a private concern, assume to set
ourselves up as judge and jury and pass sentence on persons who sub-
sequently might be proven innocent.

From a policy statement issued by the
Jos. Schlitz Brewing Company, Milwaukee

We buy "Studio One" as a package from CBS through our agency,
McCann-Erikson. These two businesses, as well as all of us at West-

* See Appendix.

192

inghouse, have a great stake in our capitalistic society. It is therefore
in our own best interests never to engage in any activities that would
jeopardize the free enterprise system.

Like any large corporation in America, we are interested in making
sure we have no Communists or subversives on our programs. We
expect CBS to screen as closely as possible to make certain we do not
use anybody who has been proved to be Communistic or a Communist
sympathizer.

L. W. Scott, Advertising Manager,

Consumer Products,

Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pa.

We would not give employment to anyone who advocates the force-
ful overthrow of the United States Government or conspires against it.
We would not, of course, base our decision on unsupported charges
from private sources, but we would heed the findings of authorized
Government agencies. Thus, we would not knowingly employ, in any
capacity, anyone who has been officially designated as subversive. This
applies generally to our employment practices, and it is immaterial
whether or not the applicant is in the entertainment field.

C. J. Backstrand, President,
Armstrong Cork Company, Lancaster, Pa.

Our company takes an active interest in the selection of talent
appearing on its radio and television shows, but, of course, depends
heavily on its advertising agency to determine the qualifications and
public acceptance of such talent. If our agency has no doubt about
the talent to be used in a particular show, we usually concur in its
recommendation. If there is doubt, we usually make an investigation
on our own. If such talent is shown to be affiliated with the Communist
Party, or an organization opposed to the Constitution of the United
States, we simply do not employ or retain them.

D. W. Stewart, Manager,

Advertising Division, The Texas Company
(Texaco Petroleum Products), New York

We would certainly look with disfavor upon the appearance on a
Dow program of any person so controversial as to place us in a ques-
tionable light by association. Similarly, we would be displeased with
any other action on the part of producers, such as the inclusion of

193

material in poor taste, which would be embarrassing to our company.
Naturally also we would not wish to be party to giving aid and comfort
to any known Communist, but would recognize that accusation and
established evidence are two different things.

Leland I. Doan, President,

The Dow Chemical Company

We have no policy as such in connection with the employment of
artists for radio and tv programs sponsored by us ... The determination
as to the employment of the artist is made on an individual basis . . .
any answers to specific questions or general comment would be theoreti-
cal. Frankly, we do not care to speculate on such matters.

Anthony DeLorenzo, Director,

Radio and TV Relations,

General Motors Corp., Detroit

Not merely in its radio and television advertising, but throughout its
organization, Lever Brothers Company strives to secure the services of
men and women of ability and good character. It is not merely a ques-
tion of avoiding undesirable elements, it is much more a matter of
choosing as its representatives the finest individuals possible. In this
policy, Lever Brothers Company is motivated not only by a decent
regard for public opinion, and by a desire to have its name remain
unsullied, but even more by conviction that it is in business not only
to make a profit but also to contribute its share to the common good.
M. J. Roche, General Manager,
Promotion and Advertising Service Division,
Lever Brothers Company, New York City

When a company such as ours uses its corporate funds to sponsor
a program on television or radio, it does so with but one purpose, — to
reach the largest possible number of the public as its audience, and to
present its product to that audience in the most favorable light . . .
Since it is the function of an artist employed on such programs to
please rather than to displease, and since the successful promotion of
consumer goods depends in large measure on the impression left by
sponsored entertainment, it follows that we would be wasting share-
holders' funds were we to employ artists or other persons who, under
company auspices, are likely to offend the public . . . We would dis-

194

approve of employing an artist whose conduct in any respect, "political"
or otherwise, has made him or is likely to make him distasteful to the
public. In making decisions pursuant to our policy, the fact that an
artist has been listed in unsupported charges by private organs, or-
ganizations or individuals does not govern our attitude toward his
employment.

Paul M. Hahn, President,

The American Tobacco Company, New York

While I have never heard it specifically outlined, I believe that any-
one employed by us to represent Coca-Cola would, sub-consciously at
least, be looked over to determine his fitness for the job. I am sure
that the same is true of any other well-managed organization.

Ability would naturally be the first consideration. After that, there
would be many other factors, both tangible and intangible, which would
determine the final decision. Whether or not the points mentioned
would be of importance would probably boil down to a question of
degree, and their relative importance in the over-all picture.

In actual practice we buy our shows as a complete package and, con-
sequently, we do not handle all of the many details from the Advertis-
ing Department. For example, "Coke Time" with Eddie Fisher is
contracted for through MCA by the D'Arcy Advertising Company, our
agency, and we have no definite knowledge of all the intimate details
which they might consider when making a show for us.
E. G. Fritschel,
Advertising Department, The Coca-Cola Company

Here are my answers to your questions in chronological order:

1. There have been frank and open admissions to me that certain of
my clients are, for political reasons, unemployable.

2. There are established procedures which can be followed to clear
up the clients' problem; at least I have established procedures of
my own. Employment criteria are fairly stable. There are generally
accepted criteria of employment.

3. a. In my opinion "blacklisting" has had a very definite effect on

the industry, depriving it in many instances of fine talent. How-
ever, if "blacklisting" is used as a standard of protection, then
the same "discretion" relating to the employment of "Com-
munists" should be applied to the equally harmful "Fascists".

195

With regard to political performance which is un-American, we
have on the one hand Gerald L. K. Smith, a fascist, and on the
other hand Paul Robeson, a Communist,
b. The method of political screening is a farce.

4. Inasmuch as my experience at one time as a propaganda analyst
taught me the extent to which a cold war can be carried, I sincerely
feel that a criterion other than competence must be applied. This
refers particularly to the writer as an artist. Across my desk have
come many innocuous-looking manuscripts and/or printed material
which have proven to be "loaded."

a. Yes. I would disapprove of the industry's employing an artist
who was named un-American by a government agency.

b. No. I would not disapprove of the industry's employing an
artist who was an "unfriendly witness" before a governmental
investigating body.

c. No. I would not disapprove of the industry's employing an
artist who stood upon the Fifth Amendment before such a body.

d. No. I would not disapprove of the industry's employing an
artist who has been listed in such private organs as Counter-
attack, Red Channels, Firing Line.

e. No. I would not disapprove of the industry's employing an
artist who in the public mind, or at least before a goodly section
of the public, is deemed "controversial."

f. I would disapprove of the industry's employing an artist who
had been proven disloyal by the Department of Justice or by
similar government agencies.

Briefly my attitude about the phenomenon to which you refer is: this
'witch-hunting' is far from the democratic concepts of our founding
fathers (the phrasing indicates the spirit in which I regard this). No
industry, group, or individual — unless duly authorized by the American
people — should be permitted to sit in judgment. I have had a great deal
of experience in this particular phase of the entertainment industry.
Dorothy Waring, Director,
Waring Enterprises, New York City

Any frank or open admission of blacklisting with regard to acting
talent always stemmed from personal friends. While these admissions
are frank they have never been open to the extent that they have ema-

196

nated from any established channel or formal procedure. When we
have been told the facts it has always been in an informal, off-the-record
manner so that we could know "what the score was." I have never
physically seen any sort of blacklist utilized by any program. The situ-
ation has arisen six or seven times in the 2V-2. years of our operation.
While this may appear as a very small percentage there are the factors
that these are the only times that we know about and that each time it
has happened it has limited the work of the particular artist on a specific
program for many months.

To my knowledge there is no accepted or established procedure for
removing talent from a "controversial" category. While one program
might find an artist objectionable another program will not. The only
partial answer I have discovered is in the securing of as much employ-
ment in other than sensitive areas for the artist if possible. If this can
be accomplished the restricted areas tend to become more lenient. At
least at that point a talent buyer can make an effort to utilize the
individual.

I feel blacklisting tends to breed undue anxieties and nurtures a great
amount of fear and insecurity amongst actors. The usual working con-
dition of an actor in the present market is more of unemployment than
employment. This is caused to a great degree by the obvious factor that
the number of competent artists far outdistances the number of job
opportunities. However, if an actor finds himself unemployed for more
than a month he never really knows whether the inactivity is caused
by the market condition itself, merely an unfortunate coincidence in
not winning succeeding auditions, or blacklisting. Furthermore, in
most instances it's extremely difficult if not entirely impossible for the
actor to find out the precise cause for non-work. If unemployment per-
sists there is a tendency on the part of many actors to go through a
panic phase of being haunted by the suspicion that they have been
blacklisted. If that happens to be the cause they rarely discover why
they have been put on a blacklist which thereby prohibits them from
work.

I have discovered that artists have been placed on lists sometimes
for as trivial a reason as a confusion in the spelling of his or her name,
or an identical name of another person who was an out and out Com-
munist. This situation hits the actors where it hurts most, economically
as well as creatively. It keeps them under a constant threat of being

197

erroneously and of course secretly accused and judged of being "con-
troversial." Many of them under these circumstances will grasp at any
straw to get out of the "controversial" category. Therefore it leaves
the door open to unscrupulous operators who will prey on this fear and
utilize it to their own ends. I have even heard of attempts for payment
from actors in order to get their names cleared. To my knowledge this
procedure has never worked and is just short of blackmail. It also pre-
sents the possibility of creating a situation whereby one actor will start
spying on another actor. Therefore this whole area tends to weaken the
morale of actors thereby dissipating the moral fabric of the entire
industry.

If to be a Communist means that the particular person in question
is committed to advocate the overthrow of the government, I do not be-
lieve that individual ought to be associated to any degree with any form
of mass communications. However, the crux of the problem and the
burning issue in radio and television is not whether to keep Communists
on or off the air. I don't believe there is any question that any person
who's pledged to the destruction of our country should be kept off the
air. The real problem, however, is how to determine who is a Commu-
nist. So far there has been no adequate solution to this problem. There
is a vast difference between a person who dissents from a popular view
and an individual who is disloyal to the public interest. I personally do
not believe that any private organization or informal group of people
should set themselves up as watchdogs of the community. It is much
too easy for the overzealous and the overcautious to become lax with
the lawful prerogatives of individuals. Too many of these supposed
watchdogs solemnly preach the virtues of our government and soberly
practice accusing and condeming without benefit of legal procedure.
In my opinion there ought to be, first of all, a legal definition of what
constitutes being a Communist. Then I believe that a procedure should
be set up whereby the individual in question is confronted with the evi-
dence and his accusers, and is able to defend himself according to the
law, keeping in mind that this procedure should be of such a nature
that the mere accusation that somebody might be "controversial" will
not immediately condemn the individual by the public at large. I further
believe that these criteria and procedures should be under federal super-
vision. It seems to me that what must be eliminated is all of the

198

private and secret mumbo-jumbo that has been going on which in effect
merely satisfies the personal interest and axes of a particular few.

Henry C. Brown,

Henry C. Brown, Inc. Agency, New York

We are definitely not satisfied with the way the situation has been
handled to date. We are, all of us, in this organization, acquainted with
several performers who are unable to get work because of unfair listings
or ill-advised affiliations in the distant past. My personal inclination is
always to use these people, if possible. However, there is no denying
the fact that if these performers or writers are well enough known to
the public, and if they are controversial enough, they do stir up a hor-
net's nest and it makes it terribly difficult for a packager to use them —
regardless of personal opinions.

In the final analysis, I think the responsibility for clearance of this
situation must rest with networks and, ultimately, the sponsors. If the
sponsors would but be firm and refuse to allow a few smear letters to
intimidate them, I believe the end result would be much more satisfac-
tory than the maze of confusion which exists at the present.
Jack Barry,
Barry, Enright & Friendly, Inc., New York City

As an advertising agency, it is our job to increase the sales of our
clients' products and services, and to enhance their public acceptance.
In the circumstances, it is our policy to refrain from employing anyone
who we have reason to believe may embroil any of our clients in con-
troversies of any kind, for any reason, or which will result in alienating
any substantial section of the public. While what is controversial may
differ from decade to decade, and even from year to year, we believe
that our company policy will continue unchanged, namely, to present
our clients' products and services in the most favorable light and to do
nothing to incur the ill will of any substantial group of people.
Robert F. Carney,
Foote, Cone & Belding, New York City

Your letter asking us some questions about practices in the entertain-
ment industry presents a real problem. As an advertising agency, we
act on behalf of clients, and in that relationship there is, as you can
appreciate, a confidential element.

199

At the same time we recognize that there is a problem in the enter-
tainment industry, and we would like to do anything we can to help
solve it fairly and equitably. As far as the position of the agency itself
is concerned, we have a policy. . . . However, you will understand that
we cannot insist that any client follow our policy completely. Conse-
quently, we have varying degrees of agreement with the execution of
our policy among our various clients.

Your question refers to "certain political criteria." The word
"political," in the dictionary sense, means "of or pertaining to polity, or
politics or the conduct of government." Under this definition, we would
classify communism as a political belief. However, communism as a
political party in the United States has been outlawed by national legis-
lation and characterized as a conspiracy rather than a political party.
We believe this was the result of the conspiratorial and unlawful
methods of the Communists. And, consequently, we do not consider a
belief in the Communist Party or in the Communist dogma as "political"
in the usual sense in which this word is used in America.

(a) We would disapprove of hiring an artist named as a Communist
by a government agency, or

(b) One who was an "unfriendly witness" before such a body (as-
suming that this had some identification with communism) , or

(c) One who stood on the Fifth Amendment before such a body
(assuming again that this was in response to a question about Commu-
nist affiliation).

(d) We would not disapprove of hiring an artist merely because he
has been listed in such private organs as Counterattack, Red Channels
or Firing Line.

(e) As to our attitude with respect to an artist "who in the public
mind, or at least before a goodly section of the public, is deemed
'controversial,' " of course it is necessary to define the meaning of the
word "controversial." Almost anyone in the public eye can be contro-
versial to some degree. Both we and our clients try to be reasonable in
our definition. Since the purpose of sponsoring a radio-television pro-
gram is to promote good will and increase sales, it is hardly possible to
justify a program which provokes antagonism and loses sales.

(f) As to any other category, there have been moral turpitude
clauses in artists' contracts since the beginning of radio and television,
as well as in other fields, and we, of course, would disapprove of hiring

200

any artist who has been involved in any situation which offends public
decency or public morals, or is offensive to any race, creed or religion.
In exercising our judgment as to such criteria, we naturally consult
with the sponsor in any cases where we deem that such consultation
is indicated. Otherwise, in those cases where the sponsor leaves this
problem to us, we exercise our judgment entirely independently.

(a) As stated above, we have our own criteria which we cannot
insist that any sponsor follow. Sponsors, too, have their own criteria
which are similar to our in varying degrees. Each case requires careful
evaluation in the light of the criteria of the particular sponsor
concerned. Some sponsors leave this problem to our judgment, and
others take an active interest themselves.

(b) It is impossible to say whether the employment of "contro-
versial" personalities hurts the sale of products. We have no direct
evidence either way. We would assume that the continued use of per-
formers who antagonized large segments of the public would affect sales
adversely. Of course, the whole basis of good public relations and the
promotion of good will among the buying public is involved.

We are not satisfied that, to date, a solution which combats the very
real threat of communism and at the same time preserves the traditional
American principles of fair play and justice to the individual has been
found. Our belief on this score applies not only to the field of enter-
tainment, but also to the problem in all areas.

We think that the use of the criteria mentioned above is based on
all three elements which you mention, i.e.,

(a) economic motives,

(b) patriotic motives, and

Our policy may be stated as follows:

1. We shall not knowingly use or permit to be used, in connection
with any advertising done by us, any material of any kind which
in our opinion implies disloyalty to the government of the United
States or its institutions, or which — either in intent or in effect —
could reasonably be interpreted as subversive.

2. Neither will we knowingly employ, or permit to be employed in
connection with any of our advertising activities, any person who
is a Communist or who — by virtue of his association or affiliation

201

with known Communists or with activities known to be disloyal or
subversive — justifies the conclusion that he is disloyal.

3. For the purpose of deciding whether we will hire or retain any
individual, we will consider as adequate reason for disqualification —
(a) his own admission that he is a member of the Communist Party
and/or disloyal to the Government of the United States; (b) a
judicial determination of his membership in the Communist Party
and/or disloyalty; (c) his refusal to answer, in a judicial proceeding
or before any properly constituted governmental investigating body,
relevant questions as to his membership in the Communist Party
and/or his loyalty.

4. In any case where an individual employed or about to be employed
by us is accused or suspected of disloyalty, we shall make every
attempt to determine the actual facts. We will not base an opinion
on hearsay evidence or suspicion, but will undertake to determine
as fairly as possible whether he is the kind of person whom we want
to employ. We recognize clearly that we have no right whatever
to pass judgment on the loyalty or disloyalty of any individual; all
that we have the right to do is to determine whether, for whatever
reason, we do or do not wish to employ the particular individual.

5. As a corollary of the last statement we may say that it will be our
policy not to join with any other person, firm or association in
blacklisting any individual; and neither will we abrogate our right
and our responsibility to make our own decision as to the hiring or
not-hiring of any individual, and in making that decision we will
not yield to pressure from any source.

We feel that the protection and preservation of America, its govern-
ment and its institutions, is not the exclusive concern of any individual,
group of individuals, or organization. That is a responsibility of all
right-thinking Americans, and we are fully prepared to shoulder our
full share of that responsibility.

We will always welcome information that is factual and constructive,
and that will aid us in making the right decision whenever a decision
is called for. But such information, from whatever source it may come,
will not be permitted in any instance to be a substitute for our own in-
dependent attempt to learn the truth.

We are sure that we are quite as concerned as anyone else properly
is with the dangers of Communist and subversive activities in this

202

country; and we are equally sure that all right-thinking Americans —
no less than we — are concerned with the protection of loyal individuals
against unsupported accusations. The preservation of our free Ameri-
can institutions demands, as President Eisenhower has said, complete
loyalty on the one hand, and protection against mere suspicion on the
other.

We wholeheartedly subscribe to that statement. And it is our hope
that by recognizing that there are two equally important objectives to
be attained — the exposure and elimination of the disloyal and subver-
sive, and the protection of the loyal — that we and all others who are
dedicated to the protection and preservation of America can all pro-
ceed, with a minimum of rancor and name-calling, toward the accom-
plishment of our common objectives.

Spokesman for a leading advertising agency
(Name withheld at agency's request)

We believe we can give you our position in this statement — we are
against communism.

We do not believe we would be acting in the best interests of the
United States, our clients and our agency to employ Communists, and
we have no intention of doing so.

F. Strother Cary, Jr.,

Administrative Vice President,

Leo Burnett Company, Inc., Chicago, Illinois

Let me say first that I have no sympathy with the present-day
American Communist. Americans today are, or should be, too well-
informed to fall for the Soviet-inspired Communist line. Twenty,
twenty-five years ago, this country was in a terrible mess and who
could blame the people for feeling that perhaps this system of govern-
ment did have some flaws after all? Not too much was known about
communism then and the hunger and hopelessness of that sad era made
a good seed-bed for its missionaries in this country.

So I'm not sympathetic with a Communist today and I do not want
him teaching in our schools or in any position of trust. Even more
than I dislike Communists, do I dislike the "witch-hunters." ... I have
nothing but contempt for anyone connected with any such activity.
... I cannot say that I relish the idea of having too many Communists
stowed away in positions where they might wield an influence on our

203

way of thinking, or, I should say, the way of thinking of the more
susceptible elements of our society. But I certainly would not draw
the line at a man just because he is "controversial." I can imagine that
there are a number of independent-minded liberals among our popula-
tion who are "controversial" without being Communist.

Kay Conran,

Artist Representative and Agent, New York City

Blacklisting has created an unhealthy Kremlin-like pallor over show-
business. A normal desire to shake Red influence in talent unions has
been subverted by the other extremists into a witch-hunt. Un-American
"shadowlands" have been created, permeating basic institutions.

Political screening has been a failure simply because too many in-
nocents have been caught up in the web without any means of redemp-
tion, short of grovelling in the mud before self-appointed "patriots"
whose influence is far in excess of their importance. Also, what is pink
at one network is "clean" at another. Even shows on the same network
vary and conflict. Some advertisers have a formal, though un-official,
screening board. These boards will check every show talent list and
ban performers who might very well have been cleared by an opposing
show. The very un-Americanism of the blanket blacklist causes this
confusion among sponsors of good-will but weak backbone. Sustaining
shows are more courageous than sponsored shows.
Robert Schultz,
Robert Schultz Associates, New York City

The radio and television programs in which we have been involved
as sponsor have been so-called "packaged" programs where our partici-
pation has been only to the extent of establishing story format and
production standards. Except in instances where it involved a host or
hostess or something of this nature, we have seldom been involved or
even consulted in the matter of casting or employment.

We, of course, would not knowingly give employment either directly
or indirectly to a Communist or to anyone we considered to be un-
American, or for that matter anyone that would be incompatible with
good citizenship.

We have made this policy known to those producing our shows and
have relied on their judgment. It would seem to us that in considering

204

the other cases proposed in your letter, one could only reach a fair
decision by taking each case individually and carefully weighing all the
facts.

John J. Oakson, Advertising Manager,
Hallmark Cards, Kansas City, Missouri

The public performer, whether in the theatre, concert, opera, radio,
television or cinema, must observe an axiom of show business, which
is not to engage in contentious non-conformism. He therefore must
confine his opinions to the secret ballot. Active participation in politics,
particularly politics out of public favor, is incompatible with his pro-
fession and may destroy his power to make a living. Judgment of the
performer's behavior is on a public relations level. Wherein merit may
lie on any question is irrelevant.

In a large agency of this sort, representing over 150 artists and
attractions, the above axiom has a direct effect on the company's
policy, and it avoids representing, as far as possible, any artists whose
political activity might reflect on the company, its other artists, its
clients, and so forth.

We have no system of political screening and assume that all of our
artists are worthy of representation until they prove otherwise.
F. C. Schang, President,
Columbia Artists Management, Inc.

In a few cases we have been told, unofficially but frankly, by tele-
vision producers that certain of our clients are unemployable due to
the inclusion of their names in such publications as Red Channels,
Counterattack and other "confidential" lists.

We have been able to discover no method of clearing such clients
for performance in radio or television but we have found that these
performers are sometimes accepted on shows after having been rejected
on other shows. In other words, we feel that employment criteria are
not stable.

We do not think that this "blacklisting" has had any profound effect
on the producing end of the industry . . . except for the loss of self-
respect on the part of the less courageous producers. We think that
while some of the more informed and thoughtful segments of the public
are contemptuous of the television and radio industry for allowing
minority groups to dictate policy, in general the public is hardly aware

205

of the situation and not seriously interested in the many hardships that
have been undergone by performers as a result. . . .

While we would not favor the employment of a performer who was
admittedly a card-carrying Communist or one designated as such after
an impartial hearing by competent Government Agencies, we would
not subscribe to the barring of a performer for any other reason except
lack of competence. This does not apply to the employment of really
controversial people, whether Fascist or Communist, in such sensitive
positions as administrators, executives, producers or writers of tele-
vision or radio shows.

Walter Prude,

Hurok Attractions, Inc., New York City

Back in 1950, when Jean Muir was dropped from "The Aldrich
Family," the case became one of the most celebrated firings in
show-business history. Arthur Godfrey's personnel shakeups may
have garnered more newspaper space in the years since, but they
have drawn nowhere near the same intensity. Overnight, television
critics turned into experts on law, due process and the state of
Western civilization.

The Muir affair created some strange journalistic bed-fellows.
The Daily Worker thought the radio-tv industry should be ashamed
of itself; so did Fortune. But the Worker would have been wise to
keep its own counsel. Far from being a case of capitalist exploita-
tion, the affair, if anything, was a clear demonstration of what
might be expected of a "dictatorship of the proletariat."

Ultimately, the issue at stake was whether the business corpora-
tion is a political (as opposed to a simply economic) unit of society.
Not that the battle was fought on that ground. Whether they said
so or not, all the combatants, including General Foods, took for
granted that they were dealing with a political problem and never
questioned whether in doing so they were trespassing on forbidden
grounds.

Thirty years ago, Mary Parker Follett, who is sometimes called
the mother of American management, wrote:

206

Oliver Sheldon says "Management acknowledges as master the pub-
lic will of the community alone." I do not agree with that. The public
will of a particular community may have to be educated to appreciate
certain standards. That is exactly what is going to make business
management a profession; to realize that it is responsible to something
higher than the public will of the community, that its service to the
public does not lie wholly in obeying the public.

What does the management of General Foods Corporation have
to do with the "public will," except as it applies to its taste for
Jell-O as opposed to its taste for, say, Royal Gelatin Desserts?
Everything, apparently. By any measure General Foods is big
business. In sales it ranks 31 among all U. S. corporations. It em-
ploys and therefore, to some extent, influences the lives of more than
20,000 people, and it must keep some 60,000 stockholders happy.
It is also as ingratiatingly eager to please as a St. Bernard. In 1954
it bought $62 million worth of advertising and promotion to tout
its several cereal, coffee, gelatin and other food products. Of this
total, it entrusted $34 million to Young & Rubicam, the advertising
agency on which it relies most heavily to stimulate a desire for
General Foods products, and to create good will for the company.

The reliance is mutual. General Foods' billings in 1954 accounted
for nearly a fifth of Y & R's business. When Y & R expanded
overseas it was hand in hand with General Foods own expansion.
The ad agency, therefore, might well be particularly solicitous
about, and sensitive to, the "public good will" its client engenders.

In that phrase, "public good will," lies the crux of the matter.
General Foods, as Fortune put it, "stood on its position that, as a
controversial personality, (Miss Muir) must necessarily hinder
rather than promote the sale of Jell-O via the Aldrich Family."
Did this mean that people seeing Miss Muir would think that lime
Jell-O tastes even less like lime than it does, or that Savarin coffee
would ipso facto taste coffee-ier than does General Foods'? Clearly
not. What was feared was that they would believe that General

207

Foods was acting, in the current jargon of "business statesmanship,"
like a "poor citizen," that it was deporting itself badly as a dis-
tinctly political power.

"The Jean Muir case," Fortune's Lewis Galantiere wrote, "has
not actually drawn business into the swamp of ideological agitation
in which government, science, the movies, and the teaching pro-
fession have so long been mired. But it has confronted business
with a public-relations issue that still remains to be clarified."

In Hollywood there is no business like show business; up and
down Madison Avenue there are plenty of businesses like show
business. Unlike Hollywood, television cannot be isolated from
American life. It is not a sample culture. TV is everywhere, it is
pervasively of American culture. It is the American business civili-
zation's image of what a business civilization should be, bought and
paid for by hundreds of business organizations.

The Muir case touched a nerve. It was at once the first and the
classic instance of blacklisting in radio-tv. Each of the principals
was as typical as any commentator could hope for. And they were
all caught more or less unprepared. Unlike the scores of variations
that have occurred since, the Muir affair spilled out into public
where it could be seen and discussed. Official mutterings from all
quarters, at first anyway, were unguarded, and surprisingly
revealing.

The one thread that ran through practically every comment on
the case was a kind of frustration, the pent-up anger of a man who
knows he has been wronged somehow but who cannot figure out
just how. Was not General Foods free to hire or fire whomever
it pleased? Was not Miss Muir paid in full for her contract? The
answer is, yes, of course. But it is also a fact that the actress was
done out of her career and had no recourse which would not
threaten to play havoc with her personal integrity.

Puzzle: find the villain. Counterattack and its supporters pro-
test, in effect: "We didn't do anything. All we did was make her

208

record known." No one can question Counterattack's (or AWARE,
Inc.'s, or Vincent Hartnett's or the Veterans Action Committee of
Syracuse Super Markets') right to publicize the dossiers they keep.
Mrs. Hester McCullough told The New York Times: "I think Gen-
eral Foods should have been as respectful of Miss Muir's rights as
they were of my rights in protesting."

Which of Miss Muir's "rights" should General Foods have re-
spected? Mrs. McCullough's right to protest does not derive from
the corporate charter of General Foods; it derives from the Con-
stitution of the United States. What "rights" in that sense did
Jean Muir have? The "right" to keep her job on television? The
"right" to continue on in her career? The power to do these things
rested in the hands of General Foods and the National Broadcasting
Company. It was for them to decide whether Miss Muir's "rights"
were to have any meaning. In a word, General Foods was asked
to do what it patently is incompetent to do — it was asked to dis-
pense legal justice.

This the corporation could not do without involving itself and
other corporations associated with it in a kind of parody of the
law. The Muir case, at the very beginning of blacklisting, then,
showed where the vacuum lay. A certain temperament and turn
of mind were required to fill that vacuum and the people who have
these qualifications comprise the jerry-built institution called black-
listing which is now part and parcel of life on Madison Avenue.

Here the problem is seen most clearly. If the American busi-
nesses which together comprise the radio-tv industry are to assume
the burdens of government, they must also assume responsibility
for dispensing justice. They cannot have it both ways. They can-
not argue on the one hand that economic considerations come be-
fore all else, and, on the other, speak glowingly of the contribution
"business statesmanship" is making to a business-oriented demo-
cratic society.

209

Blacklisting and Broadway

THERE is NO ORGANIZED BLACKLISTING on Broadway. A certain
few performers have had difficulty finding work. These are people
especially well known for their political associations; they have
been so outspoken, so thoroughly "political" in their public life
that they are persona non grata to large numbers of Americans.
The normal criteria of personal choice — including politics — do
operate, to some extent, in the legitimate theatre. Some producers
may feel so strongly about left-wingers they are loath to hire them;
other producers may be similarly prejudiced against right-wingers.
But there are no" lists" which have universal force on Broadway.
There are no "security officers." There are no "clearance" systems.

The theatre is related to blacklisting indirectly, that is, a Broad-
way performer's associations may be held against him in radio or
television. Participation in certain left-wing theatrical groups may
form an item in an actor's radio-tv dossier. But all the traditions of
the Broadway theatre militate against political blacklisting, and by
and large the theatre has lived according to those traditions.

JOHN KENNEDY (producer) : "No one in the New York legiti-
mate theatre is afraid of being picketed. There may have been
some fear in the past, but it doesn't enter into decisions now."

FRANCIS HIDDEN (actor's agent) : "No one I represent has ever
been questioned about his political associations. There is no black-
listing on Broadway."

JAMES REILLY (executive secretary, League of New York Thea-
tres) : "There are probably some actors a producer wouldn't want

210

to use for political reasons, but the matter is individual and per-
sonal. There is no organized blacklisting."

YIP HARBURG (song writer) : "There is no blacklisting on
Broadway. Still, I couldn't do Tinian's Rainbow' again, because
of its content. Sometimes a few benefit tickets might get turned
in. But there is no real blacklist."

REBECCA BROWNSTEIN (former attorney for Actors Equity As-
sociation) : "In some cases there was an attempt at 'blacklisting'
as it is called. But it was enough to phone the producer or mana-
ger. That settled the question."

ARTHUR MILLER (playwright) : "I take a very close, personal
part in casting my shows. I have never been told who I can use
or not use. I hire solely on the basis of competence. I would use
a man who was in complete disagreement with me politically if he
were right for the part."

DOROTHY PARKER (playwright) : "I believe that there is no or-
ganized or established blacklisting on Broadway."

In August, 1955, the House Committee on Un-American Activi-
ties held hearings on communism in the Broadway theatre. Twenty-
three witnesses were called, and 22 of them turned out to be
"unfriendly," invoking the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth,
Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. In
Hollywood or on Madison Avenue, actors that "unfriendly" could
expect not to work again until such time as they "cleared" them-
selves. But the Broadway performers who refused to cooperate
with the Walter Committee simply went back to work. In one case,
an actor who had invoked the Fifth Amendment had his contract
torn up — and was given a new one at higher pay and for a longer
period of time. The actor was not being rewarded for his "unfriend-
liness," he was being rewarded for his professional ability. And
it is ability that still counts on Broadway.

The experience of the 22 uncooperative witnesses in the New

211

York Theatre probe illustrates the tremendous difference between
the legitimate stage, and the movies and radio-tv. The basic differ-
ence between these media lies in the fact that the American legiti-
mate theatre is the only entertainment medium still entrepreneurial
in its methods of production.

The production of a play is relatively cheap when compared to
the cost of a movie or television show. As a result, the complex
financial setup of Hollywood and Madison Avenue does not exist.
Individual backers have to be convinced that a show has possibili-
ties, and this is usually done through personal contact between a
producer and his "angels." In 1955, Arthur Miller was unable to
work in the movies or in radio-television. Yet it was easy to raise
the money necessary to put his work on Broadway. For one thing,
Miller is a highly successful playwright — his shows have consist-
ently made money — and an investment in a Miller play is an
uncommonly safe speculation. For another, the playwright's repu-
tation is strong enough to insure a good box office sale even before
his plays open. As a result, Miller has never been faced with any
problems arising out of his highly controversial political views.
On the contrary, Miller's problem is to decide which of his poten-
tial backers to choose.

Theatrical investors, as a general rule, do not care about the
political associations of people who are to be hired. People like
Margaret Webster, Harold Rome, Dorothy Parker, and Sam Jaffe,
all listed in Red Channels, have been able to work in the theatre
throughout a period of intensive blacklisting in movies and
television.

Yet such a situation could not exist were it not for the peculiar
nature of the theatre audience in New York. The movie-goer or
television viewer is a member of an impersonal mass, part of a
vast cross-section, the nearest thing we have to the elusive "com-
mon man." His attitudes and prejudices are something of a common
denominator. Because of this, Hollywood and Madison Avenue

212

have to avoid certain themes and often feel called upon to shun
the "controversial." The number of people who would actively
boycott a movie on the basis of the political past of its writer or
star is probably small, but nonetheless large enough to alert the
businessmen responsible for a million-dollar picture. In the world
of the Broadway theatre, the audience is significantly different.

The New York Theatre relies on two major groups. One is
composed of New Yorkers who are regular theatre-goers — and
these people would be the last to stay away from a play because
they object to the politics of an actor.

The other group comes from all over the United States. It is
made up of tourists and travelers. This group is much more like
the cross-section of America forming the movie and television
audience. In their own home towns they well might object to a play
written by someone named in Red Channels or accused of "pro-
communism" by the American Legion. But in New York they are
on holiday and are unlikely to be so discriminating. Broadway
theatre tickets are hard to get, there are no grass-roots organizations
of tourists, and the decision to buy a ticket takes place in a gala
atmosphere. The political is simply not as important as it might be
back home.

How important the New York element is in explaining the ab-
sence of blacklisting in the theatre can be seen from the experiences
plays have had on the road. In the summer of 1955, Uta Hagen
was under attack in Chicago. The year before Jean Arthur had
been scheduled to appear in Chicago in "Saint Joan," but the run
was cancelled due to a combination of American Legion pressure
against another member of the cast and Miss Arthur's sickness.
In 1951, an incident in Wilmington, Delaware, would probably
have resulted in closing a play had it not been for concerted action
on the part of Equity and The League of New York Theatres. And
in two important cases, considerable pressure was brought to bear
in Syracuse, New York.

213

The first case involved the Metropolitan Opera production of
"Die Fledermaus." Jack Gilford, a comedian, had been hired by
the Metropolitan to appear in a non-singing part. Gilford received
considerable publicity since he was the first comedian to be hired
by the tradition-bound opera company. Gilford performed without
incident in New York City but when the opera went on the road
a protest was unleashed in Syracuse. The source of this action was
the Onondaga County Post #41 of the American Legion which
works in close cooperation with Laurence Johnson. Gilford had
been "listed" in Red Channels, and the Legionnaires demanded that
the Metropolitan fire him. The opera company stood firm, how-
ever, and Gilford was allowed to continue in the part.

The other incident in Syracuse involved a theatre operated by
Michael Ellis. When Ellis arrived in Syracuse to set up his produc-
tions, the Legion group was protesting the showing of some Chaplin
films and quickly turned its attention to the new theatre in town.
A protest was made when Ellis announced that Albert Dekker was
to appear in one of Ellis' productions. Dekker was withdrawn, but
Ellis' venture remained under fire. When it was announced that
Sylvia Sydney would appear in one of the plays Ellis scheduled,
the pressure started up again. Box office sales fell off sharply, and
Ellis was forced to abandon the whole venture.

In general the few actors who have found it difficult to find
work on Broadway are people so politically active that their "un-
employability" is based on the fact that they are a nuisance to work
with. Producers who are quite willing to hire actors "listed" in
Red Channels or even those who refuse to cooperate with Congres-
sional Committees, draw the line in cases where they feel a per-
former is primarily a "political person" who also acts, rather than
an actor who happens to take an interest in politics. But these
cases are relatively few in number. The exclusion of such per-
formers is not based on the existence of any kind of a "list." Paul
Robeson is a good example.

214

One result of blacklisting was the growth of the off-Broadway
theatre. Top talent became available at off-Broadway prices. In
recent years, it has been possible to see well known performers
like Morris Carnovsky, Sono Osato, Jack Gilford and Will Geer in
the little theatres. More often than not, their shows have been
non-political, although some "social" drama has been produced.
There was "Sandhog" by Waldo Salt and Earl Robinson, and
"Troublemakers" by George Bellak, but many more presentations
of the theatre classics — Shakespeare, Ibsen, Shaw and Chekhov.
In the Communist Masses and Mainstream, Nathaniel Buchwald
was quite critical of some aspects of this off -Broadway develop-
ment, particularly of the failure of "social drama" to dominate:
"In the off-Broadway movement," Buchwald wrote, "the poten-
tially large progressive audience is yet to do its part."

The off-Broadway movement has been an unforeseen and gener-
ally welcome result of the blacklisting phenomenon. Still it raises
another problem. Association with suspect actors, producers,
directors or writers in off-Broadway productions can hurt the radio-
tv chances of performers and writers. Laurence Johnson, for in-
stance, charged a well-known actress with having appeared at an
off-Broadway theatre which employed people accused of pro-
communism.

It is impossible to estimate the role of the intangibles in the
theatre and equally impossible to omit them from a discussion of
blacklisting. In Hollywood and in radio-television, artistic life has
yet to create its own traditions. "There's no business like show
business," the dedication to the individualistic, personal milieu of
the stage, has been appropriated by the mass entertainment world.
Yet on Madison Avenue it has no real roots. It is like the manager
of a professional football team exhorting his players with college
yells. But in the legitimate theatre, tradition still remains intact
and functional. The agreement between Equity and the League of

215

New York Theatres, even though, it has had little practical value,
expresses an attitude, and the attitude is probably more important
than any complicated machinery of arbitration.

Typical of this attitude was the remark of John Kennedy, a pro-
ducer who has been active in Equity for many years. When asked
to describe his personal politics, he said that he was a "liberal
conservative or a conservative liberal." He made it absolutely
clear that he loathed communism, at the same time he took a firm
stand against blacklisting in the theatre. Kennedy typifies the
"center" in Equity which has controlled the union throughout these
stormy years. It is precisely the conservatism of the theatrical
world which supports Equity's "liberal" anti-blacklisting stand.

In and of itself, Equity's experience is noteworthy. It also serves
to point up the contrast between Broadway and the mass media.
For every element which has worked to keep blacklisting out of the
Broadway theatre is absent in the mass media; conversely, it is
exactly at those points where the movies and television are unlike
the theatre that they are most susceptible to blacklisting pressure.

The mass media are big business. Thus, the decision announced
at the Waldorf Conference in 1947, which has formed the basis of
blacklisting in Hollywood ever since, was not made by the people
actually involved in the production of movies. It came, rather,
from persons whose primary interest in the films is financial. This
is in sharp contrast to the situation hi the legitimate theatre, where
financial backing is still sought on an individual basis. An investor's
enthusiasm for a particular play is still important on Broadway.

The audience for movies and radio-tv is sharply differentiated
from legitimate theatre audiences. In the first case, the audience
is many removes from the producer. It is vast, impersonal. The
legitimate theatre retains a select audience. It does not advertise
in the same way as movies and radio-television. It makes its appeals
on the basis of the judgment of a small group of critics in New York
City.

216

In Hollywood and on Madison Avenue tradition is not an im-
portant force. It is simply impossible to transfer the intimate tradi-
tions of the theatre to the impersonal mass media. The movies and
radio-tv capitulated to pressure almost as soon as it was applied.
The theatre laid down a program to fight the pressure, primarily
through the joint action of unions and management.

In a way, it may well have been this element of tradition which
worked to bring about a sane union situation in Equity. For the
ideological mentality of the extreme right militates against the tra:
dition of the theatre, just as the business structure of the movie
industry is alien to that tradition.

The proponents of blacklisting in the entertainment field are
usually "conservative" in their economic views, tending in some
instances (vide: the AWARE, Inc. students' meeting in February,
1955) to Manchester laissez faire. Yet it is precisely the element
of "bigness," of an un-Manchester economic power acting mono-
lithically, which made blacklisting possible in the movies, radio
and television. And it is the legitimate theatre, the most "free enter-
prise" part of the entertainment world, which has resisted black-
listing and has based its resistance on tradition and conservatism.

The result is that the theatre has a better conscience: it is freer.
The characteristic attitude of industry people in Hollywood or on
Madison Avenue is compounded of fear and shame. The theatre
people are proud that they have not succumbed. They are proud
of their tradition and proud that they have lived by it, even during
a period of great stress and assault.

217

APPENDIX

Typical letter sent to Networks, Packagers, Advertising Agencies,
Sponsors, Talent Agents

Dear Sir: The Fund for the Republic is sponsoring a study of employ-
ment practices in the entertainment industry. Rumors and charges of a
political "blacklist," the publicity given the Jean Muir case, the publication
of Red Channels and similar listings of "controversial" personalities in the
entertainment field, among other things, prompted the officers of the Fund to
initiate a full-scale study of the situation. A staff of journalists and re-
searchers was assembled and has been working for several months.

We are eager to produce as forthright and balanced a report as possible.
It is in the interest of doing so that we are writing to you. Your cooperation
would add greatly to the significance of the study.

In the radio-television field it seems important that we present accurately
the general position major networks [sponsors, advertising agencies, pack-
agers] take with regard to the employment of artists. Such questions as
the following seem to be pertinent:

(1) Does your organization hold that certain political criteria should be
met by artists whom you engage, i.e. would you disapprove of hiring
an artist

(a) named as a Communist by a Government agency?

(b) one who was an "unfriendly witness" before a governmental
investigating body?

(d) one who has been listed in such private organs as Counterattack,
Red Channels, Firing Line?

(e) an artist who in the public mind, or at least before a goodly
section of the public, is deemed "controversial"?

(f ) any other category?

(2) If such criteria are to be met, does your organization [if sponsor]
leave the application of them to the advertising agency and the net-
work or do you take an active interest?

(3) Is it your experience that the employment of "controversial" per-
sonalities hurts the sale of products?

(4) Are you satisfied with the way the question has been handled to date?
Aside from specific answers to these questions we would be very grateful

for any other comments on what is surely a difficult and admittedly a deli-
cate situation.

JOHN COGLEY

218

Letter from Assistant United States Attorney General
William F. Tompkins:

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 11, 1955, to the
Attorney General, with respect to the so-called Attorney General's list. The
replies to your questions are set forth numerically below.

(What is the standing, in law, of the Attorney General's list?)

1. The so-called Attorney General's list is compiled at the direction of the
President as contained in Executive Order 10450 relating to the Federal
Employee Security Program. The list is for the guidance of the heads of
the Federal executive departments and agencies for use in connection with
requests for investigation regarding employment or retention in employment
of Federal employees. Its content becomes public information because it is
published in the Federal Register.

(In the policy of your office, is membership in an organization on the
List considered proof of subversion?)

2. The nature and extent of membership in a designated organization is
but one factor to be considered in determining the qualifications of individ-
uals for employment or retention in employment with the Federal
Government.

(Is use of the list by private individuals authorized by your office?)

3. The Attorney General's list is issued solely for the purpose of apprizing
the heads of executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government
of the names of organizations, membership in which would warrant request-
ing a full field investigation in connection with the Federal Employee Security
Program. The list necessarily enters the public domain upon its publication
but this Department has no authority to permit its adoption for purposes
other than that for which it is made.

(Is there any official determination by the Government that certain indi-
viduals are Communists? If so, which agencies make such a determination?)

4. No official compilation of Communists is maintained by the Executive
Branch of the Government.

Title I of the Internal Security Act of 1950 requires the registration of
members of a Communist-action organization under prescribed conditions
and imposes certain sanctions upon such members. Upon the failure of the
organization to register its membership and upon the failure of the individual
to register himself, the Act provides that the Attorney General may petition
the Subversive Activities Control Board for an order to compel such
registration.

219

The Board has determined the Communist Party of the United States of
America to be a Communist-action organization. However, under the Act
no action against individuals can be undertaken until the Party has exhausted
its appellate remedies. No voluntary registrations have been made.

(Is the statement of a Congressional Committee that an individual
is a Communist considered an official statement of the United States
Government?)

5. The statement of a Congressional committee that a citizen is a Com-
munist is not considered as an official statement of the United States Govern-
ment. It is a statement of a committee of the legislative branch of the
Government, and we can express no opinion upon the authority of one
committee to speak officially for the Congress. It certainly is not an official
statement of the executive branch of the Government.

220

ANTI-COMMUNISM AND EMPLOYMENT POLICIES
IN RADIO AND TELEVISION

by MARIE JAHODA

Research Center for Human Relations
New York University

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This study was conducted at the Research Center for Human Relations
whose entire staff contributed at various occasions to its content. Particular
thanks are due to Mr. Gerald Hogue who was in charge of the field work for
the morale survey and cooperated in the development of the interview sched-
ule. In addition, Drs. Stuart W. Cook, Isidor Chein and Eva Rosenfeld
helped in the planning stages and throughout the conduct of the study.
Thanks are due all persons who permitted themselves to be interviewed or to
discuss the complicated problems of the industry with the author. It is an
unfortunate symptom of the climate of the times that they cannot here be
identified by name.

The study was done at the initiation of the Fund for the Republic and with
a grant from it. Thanks are due to this foundation for its consistent effort,
here and in other matters, to bring rational considerations to bear on the
controversial issues of our time.

M.J.
December, 1955

221

National Security, the Climate of Opinion
and the Entertainment Industry

During the last few years the grave problem of internal security has
been a central concern for many persons of very diverse views and
values. In particular, governmental measures designed to ensure that no
subversive elements be retained in government service have given rise
to a heated national debate which at times threatened to submerge in-
terest in all other national and international issues confronting the coun-
try. Gradually, the exchange of accusations and counter-accusations
has begun to subside, and is giving way to a more rational approach to
the problem of security. There is by now widespread agreement among
unquestionably loyal citizens of the country that ways and means must
be found to avoid the excesses of the recent past without endangering
national security. A presidential committee has been appointed to re-
view and suggest revisions of governmental security procedures; the
stand which courageous individuals of both major political parties have
taken on the unintended and undesirable consequences of security pro-
cedures has had its impact on the climate of thought in the country.

But the impetus of earlier excesses has not yet been spent. And many
fear that a slight reversal in the international situation or the unforesee-
able symptoms of the political fever ordinarily produced in a major
election campaign may throw us back where we were a little while ago.
This, then, is a crucial and perhaps short period in which the climate
of thought can be rationally assessed and discussed.

It is of particular importance that the unanticipated consequences of
governmental security procedures be brought into full light. They are
easily overlooked in periods of crisis. There are two such consequences
which have especially affected the climate and policies in organizations
and industries outside the government.

One stems from what is perhaps the most difficult issue in the gov-
ernmental security procedures: the vagueness of the criteria for identi-
fying an untrustworthy person in government service before that person
has done harm to his country. The problem and the consequences of
handling it in the current fashion have been described elsewhere in the
following terms:*

* Ideological Compliance as a Social-Psychological Process, by Marie Jahoda and
Stuart W. Cook, in Totalitarianism, Carl J. Friedrich, ed., Harvard University Press,
1954.

222

"Is every Communist a potential spy or saboteur? Is every student of
Marx a danger to the security of the country? Is every member of an organi-
zation which includes Communists to be distrusted? How should the internal
enemy be identified? By oath? By his reading habits? By views which are
shared by Communists? By his associations?

"The answers to these questions are not easy. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation collects all information which might possibly be relevant to
the appraisal of individual cases. Since government investigators are asking
questions about membership in all kinds of organizations, about political
views and opinions on various social problems, about interests and reading
matter and other items of the kind, the impression has been created that to
credit somebody with an active organizational life, with unorthodox or even
only outspoken views on public affairs, with extensive reading habits, and so
forth, is a disservice to him. The thought naturally arises that if such things
are asked about, in the eyes of the government they must be questionable.
There is only a brief step from feeling that it is not wise to describe one's
friends in this way, to the conclusion that it is not wise to have such activities
to one's own credit.

"A variety of self-appointed individuals and groups have taken the next
step in the process. Though having no official connection with the machinery
through which national security is protected, and perhaps not always moti-
vated by a concern for national security, they publicly call attention to the
records of individuals who deviate from their standards of acceptable
behavior. What they emphasize is quite similar to the areas checked upon
by official investigators; the important difference is that, whereas the official
investigations are confidential, the unofficial ones are broadcast as widely as
possible. Such publicity makes the pressure to conform, of course, much
stronger. One is in constant danger of public exposure as an individual
associated with activities about which questions are asked.

"The final increment is supplied by employers. Advertisers, businessmen,
school authorities, movie producers, all hesitate to hire or retain employees
thus singled out, since this may offend some client, customer, or patron."

Thus, the original idea of protecting the national security by collect-
ing circumstantial evidence in many directions, to be appraised in toto
and in conjunction with other data in order to see whether all evidence
converges to justifying strong suspicion, has given way to regarding a
few items of information, and often only one, as proof of an employee's
undesirability in an organization which may have no possible connec-
tion with matters affecting national security.

The other consequence of current governmental procedures is that
outside the government the motivation behind these procedures has

223

been obscured and often replaced by new motivations. The govern-
mental measures aimed at protecting national security against a potential
internal enemy. Even within the government, many federal employees
felt that other motivations were involved in the application of the secu-
rity procedures.* Outside the government there seems to have occurred
a much more radical change in motivation for what, with little apparent
justification, is often still referred to as security procedures. When, for
example, tenants in public housing projects are asked to sign a loyalty
oath, the security implication is not obvious. Nor is it clear how the
security of the nation will be strengthened if books written by suspected
authors are removed from library shelves, or teachers against whose
teaching there is no complaint, are made unemployed and even unem-
ployable because they claimed the protection of the Fifth Amendment
to the Constitution.

The new motivation is rarely made explicit. Judging by the nation-
wide debate on the subject it appears as if the purposes behind many
private so-called security measures cover a wide range: some persons
wish to eliminate Communist ideas; others want to eliminate persons
proven or suspected of being Communists or fellow-travelers from all
walks of life either because they fear that a fair proportion of the
income of such people will be given to the Communist Party or because
they want to punish such people for their convictions; still others seem
to be seeking revenge for their own or other people's earlier gullibility.
And some persons suggest that even more naked self-interest — in terms
of wishes for personal power or financial gain — plays a role in the
motivation of many private organizations and individuals who have set
themselves up as judges over other people's beliefs and ideas.

Different persons will, of course, have different judgments on the
"goodness" of the motivations in this array. In any case, there is a
common denominator to these motives in that they have little, if any,
bearing on the security issue even though they have undoubtedly come
to the fore because of the nation's concern with problems of internal
security. The relevant aspects of the climate of opinion in the country
consequently tend to be less concerned with security considerations
than with ideological purity; and this concern, reflecting the diversity

* Some evidence of the range of suspected motivations is given in "Security Meas-
ures and Freedom of Thought," by Marie Jahoda and Stuart W. Cook, Yale Law
Journal, March, 1952.

224

of motivations, is confused and confounded by the absence of generally
accepted criteria for identifying the impure.

The radio and television industry is particularly sensitive, in every
respect, to the country's climate of opinion. This is hardly surprising
since the financial structure of the industry is bound up with public
favor. Many millions of dollars are spent by sponsors on radio and
television in order to impress an audience whose responses to these
media cannot be immediately observed. The enormous size of the
audience makes it understandable that the industry is much concerned
with broad currents of public opinion; the anonymity of the audience
makes it understandable that the various devices to gauge the popularity
of a program are taken as yardsticks of success. But most policy makers
are fully aware that appraisals of public opinion are precarious and that
rating devices do not fully penetrate behind the anonymity of the audi-
ence. In this situation, any spontaneous communication from members
of the audience by mail or telephone assumes considerable importance.

On all levels of the industry, from the actor who gets one or two
minor parts a year to top level performers and top level executives of
networks, advertising agencies, packaging firms and sponsors, stories
abound about the elation occasioned by a handful of favorable mail from
the public, and the depression resulting from a similarly small number
of critical communications. To be sure, people concerned with enter-
tainment may be occupationally more alert than most to appreciate a
good story when it comes along, and this may have resulted in an exag-
geration of the importance attached to spontaneous audience response.
However, the elaborate process of control and revision through which a
prospective program has to pass before it goes on the air gives some
measure of the degree to which public favor, or at least absence of
public disfavor, is a major prize for which the industry strives.

Stripped to bare essentials, the assumptions underlying the effort not
to offend the audience can be presented as follows: It is as if the shop-
ping process of the American housewife proceeded in the following
fashion: (1) she watches a television show sponsored, for example, by
a toothpaste firm; (2) when she next finds herself in a drugstore ready
to buy a toothpaste she consciously or unconsciously recalls to mind not
only the name of the product and the promises contained hi the com-
mercial, but the entire show, her liking for or boredom with it, and all
she knows about individual performers on it; and (3) she then decides,

225

in the light of such appraisal, whether or not to try the brand. Top
executives, confronted with this hypothetical schema and the psycho-
logical unlikelihood that shopping actually proceeds in this fashion,
answer, as a rule, that there is no definitive evidence that such cases do
not occur and, since they can entertain the public without taking risks,
the sensible course is to avoid them.

The assumption that an individual housewife regards shopping as a
conscious and purposeful political act was deliberately formulated in
an extreme fashion in discussions with leaders of the industry so as to
test the limits of the industry's concern with political matters. It has
been pointed out, however, that the problem confronting the industry
is more complicated and their concern more rational than this extreme
formulation suggests. For even if it were generally agreed that the indi-
vidual housewife is innocent of all political considerations in her shop-
ping act, the sponsor's business is dependent not only on individual
housewives but, and perhaps more directly, on the middleman, the
retailer, managers or buyers who decide to give one brand preference
over another. This is a much smaller group of persons; a group un-
doubtedly much better informed about business policies, and a group
which — because of its small size and clearly defined position — can
perhaps be much more easily reached and influenced by pressure
groups. Not to antagonize these middlemen is an understandable
rational desire on the part of the industry.

It would be wrong, however, to assume that these limitations inevi-
tably imposed by the financial structure of the industry are so severe
that no other considerations enter into the formulation of policy. Not
only are most responsible people concerned with the quality of enter-
tainment, but — as network executives have pointed out — controversies
of various kinds are actually presented on the air. Within the last year
or two, the nation-wide controversy about the manner in which internal
security problems are handled by certain individuals, committees and
groups has found its place in radio and television; a few commentators
can look back on an even longer record of dealing on the air with this
most controversial issue. What controversies are treated by radio and
television, and at what time, must of course be decided by general
policy decisions. The issue then becomes one of drawing the line,
which here — as everywhere else — hardly ever separates black and
white but different shades of grey.

226

Not only with regard to content but also in questions of employment
policy, with which this report is mainly concerned, the limitations
imposed by the financial structure of the industry require complicated
and immensely difficult policy decisions. In this area it is hardly sur-
prising to see the entertainment industry — with its sensitivity to the
climate of opinion, its concern for public favor, its wish to avoid prov-
ocation of pressure groups, and its existing machinery for barring from
the air anything assumed to be detrimental to the business purposes of
the industry — becoming enmeshed in a variety of procedures, com-
monly referred to as "blacklisting'*, which reflect the developments
initiated by the country's concern with internal security. It is the pur-
pose of the present study to explore what these practices mean within
the industry.

Scope and Purpose of this Study

The exploration of the role of "blacklisting" within the entertainment
industry can, of course, take various directions. A number of them are
pursued in other sections of the larger inquiry of which this study forms
a part. The focus here is on the climate of opinion within radio and
television with regard to "blacklisting"; it is a study of certain aspects
of morale.

The study proceeded in three major steps. It began with a general
period of exploration of the work situation in the industry. This in-
cluded a study of what is available in the literature, the technical pub-
lications of the industry — especially Variety — and publications such as
Counterattack, Red Channels, The Firing Line (published by the
National Americanism Committee of the American Legion), Aware,
Inc.; also the files available on the subject at the American Civil Lib-
erties Union, including reports on cases of alleged "blacklisting", and
relevant clippings from the daily press on a nation-wide basis over
several years, reports of Congressional Committees, etc. During this
first orientation period prolonged discussions and interviews were held
with 24 experts in the field of radio and television and related research
areas. Among them were four psychologists, one psychiatrist, two
sociologists, one lawyer, two critics; but mostly top level commentators,
actors and writers for the industry, who knew the field not simply as
interested observers but from daily experience.

The second step consisted of an interview survey with persons cur-

227

rently employed in the industry.* The first half of the interview was
concerned with a series of questions about the industry in general, the
satisfactions and frustrations it offered to the person interviewed, his
current activities and his hopes for the future, his views of human rela-
tions in general among personnel in the industry, and the like. Then
the interview turned to the problem of "blacklisting", eliciting the
person's beliefs about the factual situation, his feelings about it, his
approval or disapproval of what he saw as the facts, his knowledge
about procedures used in implementing policies designed to exclude
alleged Communists, his assumptions about the motivation for such
procedures, the adjustment that he himself and others around him had
made to the situation, and so on. The final phase of the interview asked
the respondent to relate the problems of the industry in general which
he had discussed in the first half of the interview to the problem of
"blacklisting".

The third step consisted of a small number of interviews with policy
makers in networks, advertising agencies and packaging firms. The
purpose of these interviews was to acquaint leaders in the industry with
the picture obtained from step two, to elicit their comments on this
picture and to discuss with them possible ways of improving the situa-
tion. The expectation that no industry, let alone one as sensitive to
public opinion as the entertainment industry, could remain impervious
to public opinion within its own ranks, was by and large confirmed.
Some necessary qualifications of this statement will emerge later on.

Altogether, in the three steps of the study about one hundred and
twenty interviews were conducted. For the morale survey experienced
interviewers, most of whom had some familiarity with radio and tele-
vision, were specially trained for the task.

For reasons that have to do with the structure of the television and
radio industry, statements reporting the statistics of the returns in
sample surveys of the views of its employees are subject to special
qualifications. Ordinarily, a survey is based on data of a sample selected
so as to be representative of the entire population in which one is inter-
ested. The prerequisite for drawing such a sample is that a complete
list be available or that, at least, the population be definable in some
precise way. This prerequisite cannot be satisfied for radio and tele-

* A copy of the interview schedule will be found in the Appendix, together with
summaries of the answers received to the individual questions.

228

vision in New York City. Employee lists from networks, even if they
could have been obtained, would be of little help. Many persons work
for several networks; others are employed not by networks but by
advertising agencies or packagers. Still others, particularly writers, work
on a free-lance basis, with or without the help of an agent. Figures
from the unions, if they could have been obtained, would not have pro-
vided a sound base because, while the profession is 100% unionized,
many persons maintain membership in the union even though they have
not been employed for a year or more, or their employment was re-
stricted to one or two appearances during a year. Thus, it is virtually
impossible (unless one wanted to make this in itself a major focus of
study) to say how many persons work in the industry in New York
City, to say nothing of who they are, and hence, what kind of sample
would truly represent the views and values of the industry's personnel.
Nevertheless, particular care was taken in selecting persons to be
included in the morale survey (step two of the study), not because we
were aiming for precise numerical estimates, but in order to minimize
the possibility of bias in selection.* It should be noted that special pre-

* Lists of about 6000 names were available from several sources: Ross Reports
on Television, The Radio Annual — Television Yearbook, 1954, the Players' Guide,
Exchange. By arbitrary decision, every wth name was selected from these lists and
and the listings of the Hayes Registry, Radio Registry, and Radio Artists Telephone
checked as to its suitability for the general sample plan. This plan contained the
following specifications: a third of the sample was to be drawn from persons
oriented primarily to radio and two-thirds from persons oriented primarily to
television. Within each group three types of activities should be represented: talent;
producers and directors; and writers, news analysts, and commentators. Within
these activity groups persons on various levels of success (top level, medium and
low) should be included. If a person selected from the list did not fit the sample
plan, the immediately following name which fitted the prescribed requirement was
substituted. The level of success was determined in consultation with the organi-
zation publishing the Ross Reports where a corresponding classification of industry
personnel is independently done. The same substitution procedure was followed
in 25 cases where selected respondents refused to cooperate, most of them pleading
pressure of time, a few lack of interest. It should be noted that almost 30% of the
individuals approached declined to be interviewed. This is an additional reason for
taking numerical results with caution. To be sure, there was no mention of "black-
listing" in the first contact made with the respondent by phone, nor in the letter
introducing the interviewer (the text of the letter is given in the appendix), but we
do not know whether there might be systematic differences between the kind of
people who are and those who are not willing to be interviewed on the subject of
satisfactions and dissatisfactions of working in the entertaniment industry.

229

cautions were taken to interview only persons who were currently
employed; that means persons who were not "blacklisted." This is
important for the interpretation of the data: what they told the inter-
viewers about blacklisting procedures is not based on direct personal
experience, but on their beliefs and opinions formed on the basis of
what they heard from others. This report is not concerned with factual
procedures; it is limited to the psychological field.

The sample for the morale survey consists of 64 respondents. Twenty-
three are in radio (though half of them also have some experience with
television); 41 are in television, either "live" or "film". Twenty re-
spondents are top level, 23 medium, and 21 low or marginal. In terms
of activity, the sample includes 23 talent, 20 producers and directors,
and 21 writers, news analysts, or commentators. These three categories
of persons will be referred to in the report collectively as talent, i.e., as
persons whose main job consists of shaping or presenting creatively
what goes over the air. This choice of words may not be ideal. The
word employee, however, could easily be misunderstood to embrace
also managerial, technical and office personnel who are not represented
in the survey; furthermore, some persons are included in the survey
who are not employees in the sense of receiving regular specified wages.
It is a sign of the youth of the industry that it has not yet developed a
generally accepted terminology.

The Employment Situation of Talent: An Aspect of Morale

Morale is a complex response to a complex situation in every industry.
Morale among talent in radio and television is for a number of reasons
even more complex than elsewhere.

Both media, but in particular television with its meteoric rise, are
moulders and symbols of our cultural climate. More immediately but
also more fleetingly than media which create lasting records do they
penetrate into virtually every American home. The size of their audi-
ence is unparalleled. As is so often the case, technical and commercial
inventiveness are far ahead of our social and psychological knowledge
about the manner in which these media influence the quality of living
of our people. Do they enrich or impoverish? Do they encourage
diversity or are they conducive to conformity? Do they spread ideas
and stimulate thought, or do they dull the imagination? Do they accom-

230

plish some of these things in certain respects or in certain people and
their opposites in others?

No one is yet in a position to answer these questions on the basis of
rational appraisal. But the questions are in the air. They are asked
not only by detached observers but in various forms by every thinking
person in the field. Their very existence illustrates the spirit of excite-
ment and pioneering which pervades the entire industry. There can be
no doubt that this spirit itself has a significant bearing on the morale of
all personnel in radio and television.

It would be presumptuous to deal here with these and other broad
aspects of morale. On the other hand, it would be foolish to talk about
"blacklisting" as if it could be viewed in isolation from other facets of
the industry which exhilarate or depress, gratify or annoy its talent. To
provide the proper context we will deal with a limited aspect of morale
only: the employment situation as it is experienced by the talent of the
industry. No claim can be made that even this much more limited field
is comprehensively explored. Rather, we have selected a few aspects
which appear to us to form an indispensable background for understand-
ing the views of talent on the primary subject matter of this report.

Undoubtedly the economic situation is of great importance, par-
ticularly the labor market. In discussions of this topic, one phrase
recurred again and again: in radio and television there are at least ten
candidates for every job to be filled. There is no way of knowing how
accurate this alleged proportion is. For all we know, it may be five to
one or it may be twenty to one or some other ratio. But the accuracy of
the estimate is negligible compared to the unanimity of the belief that
there is a virtually inexhaustible reservoir of would-be radio and tele-
vision talent available.

The excess of labor supply over demand is in itself an indication that
the entertainment world has not lost its glamour and appeal as it
entered, through radio and television, the era of mass production. The
attitude toward their work of the persons interviewed is overwhelmingly
positive. People on top, medium, and low level; talent, producers and
writers — most of them mention sooner or later in the interview the
potentially tremendous satisfactions that entertaining holds out for the
entertainer. They speak of radio and TV as superior media of expres-
sion, of their creative urges, of the thrill in knowing that millions of
people see or hear them, of the satisfaction in meeting the challenge

231

of a new medium, of the variety of work, its spontaneity, and of course
of the fact that it gives them a living.

One prominent actor says, for example: "What I like most? Every
night is an opening night. I like the spontaneity, precision, and the
opportunity to serve." A producer: "It's a challenging business. The
huge audience available to you is a great stimulation. It's an incredibly
disciplining medium. TV is relentless and consuming — another reason
why I like it. And its talents are youngest and freshest. I have met
some wonderful people." An actress: "The liveliness of it. There's
never a repetition. There is not enough time to rehearse, but it's con-
tinuous action. You get a chance to play so many things." A director:
"What do you mean what I like best? It's my business, it's my life, I
like it all." And a producer: "You get an artistic satisfaction from
making people happy. I get thousands of fan letters. And you make a
lot of money in this business."

This enthusiastic identification with the world of entertainment is
occasionally qualified. To be sure, only two out of all our respondents
felt like leaving the entertainment field altogether. But about one-third
said they would rather work in the theater or in movies than in radio
or television; and 50% of the respondents mention "the money" as one
of the things they like best about their jobs. We have no comparable
data from other professions to evaluate whether this is a comparatively
high or low percentage. On the other hand the interviews indicate the
sense in which the financial rewards offered by the industry are of
peculiar significance to its talent. To be sure, money is valued for the
good things it can buy. But in addition, much more than in most other
occupations, it is a major symbol of prestige and achievement, and
conveys a sense of professional security far beyond the matter of secur-
ity from want.

The need for such reassurance is not hard to understand. It requires
no special psychological insight to realize that the very attractiveness of
radio and television, as demonstrated in the labor market situation, and
its rapid development are not conducive to a sense of job-security.
Indeed, a fairly large proportion of talent do not know the security
which goes with the status of an employee who receives a monthly
check for a month's work and can look forward to receiving it regu-
larly. Many of them are free-lance, or hired for short periods. The
continuation of a show depends on intangible factors over which the

232

individual has no control. Sponsors, advertising agencies, and networks
constantly develop new ideas and programs which may dispense with
the special qualities one person has to offer.

Many who were just able to get their foot into this coveted field by
obtaining a minor part know full well that there are hundreds who
could perform this small function equally well. And they know that
the casting officers know this too. They may firmly believe that they
could prove their mettle if given a bigger chance. But for the time being,
those lucky enough to find employment in minor parts are without a
direct yardstick by which to judge their own achievement, and without
a way of forming an estimate of the security of their job. The rate of
pay is the only substitute indication they have for assessing themselves
as they appear in the eyes of others.

Star performers, though for different reasons, often share this sense
of insecurity. They fear that the audience may be surfeited with their
type of show and that ratings may go down. Many of them are firmly
convinced that there is no way back once a person has passed the peak
of his popularity.

In such an inevitably insecure employment situation, it would not
be surprising if talent, in an effort to maintain their own self-esteem,
attributed the greater success of others to unfair tactics of competition.
And a few actually do so. Some of the interviewees tell about young
women who "slept their way up" to prominence, about favoritism for
relatives, and the like. But an overwhelming percentage of the re-
spondents think that the most successful people in their field reached the
top because they deserved it. Of the persons who answered this ques-
tion, two-thirds assert this notion of deserved success without qualifica-
tions. Almost all the others believe that ability and hard work are
important factors in success in the field, but they also mention luck, a
"good break," and "knowing the right people."

Another factor in the employment situation of talent which bears
on morale is the nature of human relations in the industry. The com-
munication between management and talent, the understanding they
have of each other, the compatibility of their interests and their degree
of mutual confidence are important aspects of morale. There are two
apparently contradictory sets of stereotypes which exist simultaneously
in the field: the easy going camaraderie of show people versus the cut-
throat competitiveness of the entertainment industry; the devotion of a

233

team to a creative and artistic task versus the mechanical routine of an
entertainment machinery which interferes with creativity, dilutes high
standards and has no room for the responsibility of the individual for
his work. It is most likely that some factual justification can be found
for each of these views in the experience of every one in radio and
television. Here we are concerned, however, less with what actually
exists and more with how existing conditions are reflected and balanced
in the minds of the people working in the field. From that point of
view the opposed stereotypes are neatly resolved for many in terms of
seeing the positive side among their immediate colleagues and the nega-
tive side among sponsors, ad agencies, packagers, and — to a lesser
extent — network executives.

As to the relations between colleagues, here too opinions are, of
course, divided. About one quarter of the people interviewed voiced no
opinion or felt that there wasn't much difference between the entertain-
ment industry and other fields, when it came to helping each other.
Among the remainder, more than half were convinced that relations
were better, while only 13% said they were worse than elsewhere.
Statements such as the following were frequently made: "People in
show business identify with a fellow artist in trouble. They generally
say to themselves: that might happen to me. And so I think they are
very prone to helping each other out of difficulties."

But there are, of course, limits to mutual help: "I think they would
draw the line when they feared that they themselves might be jeop-
ardized or if they financially could not help."

The emphasis on more than ordinary helpfulness which stops only
when competition for the job is involved or outside the circle of one's
immediate colleagues is succinctly summarized by a TV producer:

"Everyone in our organization would do everything they could to
help everyone else. There is no such thing as a one man TV effort. It's
a cooperative effort. Would competitors help me? I doubt it. Would
I help competitors? I doubt it. Would a drowning advertising agency
or a sponsor screaming out in the night for help evoke my sympathy
and assistance? I strenuously doubt it."

In general, relations to managers, sponsors, advertising agencies and
policy makers on all levels are often experienced as poor. This emerged
spontaneously in answer to the question as to what a person disliked
about his job in radio or TV. Many factors are mentioned in response

234

to this question: the insecurity of the job (20% ); the nervous pressure
(41%); the blacklist (10%), the lack of standards and talent (42%);
and others. But no other factor is mentioned so frequently as the cause
of dissatisfaction with the job as network and advertising executives,
and sponsors: fully 52% of the respondents take the question as an
occasion to describe the frustrating lack of understanding between the
creative people in the field and those on the business and administrative
end.

Feelings often run high on the subject, as the following excerpts from
interviews indicate.

A TV writer and editor, classified in the top level category, whose
work has been on the air more than 25 times during the year:

"TV isn't one of the forms — I hate to call it an art — where you're
on your own. You are responsible to the sponsor and the network.
If the sponsor's wife doesn't like people to die in a play, people can't
die. That's radio, that's TV, that's any medium where policies are
dictated by people who haven't any idea of it. They don't look at a
play, they look at their Trendex, their rating, and this is certainly
no yardstick for what is good."

A leading character-actor in radio has this to say:

"What I dislike? The impossible restrictions which have cut down
drama to a pallid reflection of what it should be. Everyone is afraid
to offend. The fear is foisted by the networks who feel they have to
please everyone. There is a fantastic amount of censorship which is
labelled something else . . . The ad agencies are so convinced they
have their finger on the public pulse . . . there are tremendous
amounts of money involved and they won't stick their necks out.
The result? The business people have got producers, directors and
writers scared and apathetic."

A radio producer, rated as medium-level:

"I dislike the authoritarian attitude that sponsors assume. A
sponsor rings up and complains because the hero and heroine do not
go into a church at the end of the program; or, why did he have to
find out that the beautiful blonde was a spy? There is too much
compromise. I feel the 100% saleable show is pretty trashy."

The nature of these comments makes it abundantly clear that they
come from artists. It may well be that creative people will feel cramped

235

in any organization, and that artists resent restrictions more than other
people. If that be the case, communication and clarity in the relation
between policy makers and talent would be particularly urgent to keep
such inevitable resentment within manageable limits. The structure of
the industry, however, makes it difficult to achieve such clarity. Re-
sponsibility for decisions is apparently always divided, and often lies,
or is assumed to lie, outside the networks. Any piece of writing goes,
as a rule, through a system of checks and controls so that the original
product has often changed considerably when it goes on the air.
Sponsor and advertising agency determine, or are assumed to determine,
policy at least to the same extent as the network.

One serial writer describes the situation in the following way: "What
I dislike most is that so many people pass judgment on what I write.
The writer submits a plot and writes a script. A number of people look
at it from different viewpoints. The producer, the director, the actors,
the network, the sponsor — this is a source of unhappiness for me
because instead of getting what you feel you have created, you get a
compilation."

And another writer: "Everybody is so damned afraid. And there
is a censorship, an actual censorship in effect. It's the ad agencies and
the sponsors. It's a vicious thing, all these taboos. The American public
is treated as if it had the moral sense of a child. Everything has got to
be happy and sunny. The ad agency rules the field. But you can't put
it all off on the agency either. Sometimes the sponsor himself puts his
veto in directly."

A producer complains: "There are some things that the advertiser
or the ad agency requests and at times commands which do not con-
form with my idea of good entertainment. I dislike all interferences on
the part of the network or the sponsor."

One director, perhaps with undue limitation to the entertainment
industry, said: "This is the only field where the guy who pays the bill
tells the expert what to do."

If one recalls that many of these critics are actually not in the rela-
tion of employees to the managers and policy makers of the industry —
that they do not have a stable, continuing relationship with a given
managerial group — the difficulty in achieving clarification or change
will be seen in its proper perspective.

These, then are some of the features in the employment situation of

236

talent which influence morale. It is against this complex background
that the views on "blacklisting" must be appraised.

Views on "Blacklisting"

"Blacklisting" is an ugly term. So ugly, that it is freely used throughout
radio and television only by those who condemn wholeheartedly the
variety of practices and policies associated with the term. Those who
approve of such procedures as well as those who deny their existence
object, and as a rule violently, to its use.

According to Webster's Dictionary a blacklist is "a list of individuals
regarded as suspect or as deserving of censure or adverse discrimi-
nation"; and, specifically, "an employer's list of workers who hold
opinions, or engage in activities, contrary to employers' interests, espe-
cially a list of workers active in non-recognized union organizations."

The essential aspect of this definition - the existence of an actual list
— is denied by all top executives who were consulted, whatever their
personal view or their organization's practices with regard to criteria
for the employability of a person. There are "sources" which are con-
sulted; there are "mysterious telephone numbers" as one respondent
said, which are called; there are "information services" outside the
industry which check on past and present political views and associa-
tions of radio and television personnel. But there is no list. One
executive mentioned the following incident: at a meeting attended by
representatives of various organizations in the industry, a union official
presented a proposal for improving the situation in the industry. The
first part of the proposal contained the request that "everybody tear up
his list." The proposal was voted down, in part because it was unrealistic.
Everybody present agreed that there was no list to be torn up.

So strong is the aversion to the term that one top executive who
spoke with considerable frankness and in much detail about the methods
he used to screen employees and job candidates for their views and
associations felt compelled to add: "But this is not blacklisting. I define
blacklisting as discrimination on the job because of race, creed, color or
political belief. Communism or sympathy with communism is not an
ordinary political belief. It is a conspiracy. Hence I am not engaged
in blacklisting."

The assertion from several sources that no list exists recalls a pro-
found remark by Baudelaire: 'The most beautiful ruse of the Devil is
to persuade us that he doesn't exist."

237

As a matter of fact, the actual existence or non-existence of such a
list is not of central importance to a study of beliefs about employment
practices in the industry as affected by political considerations, nor to
an understanding of their psychological effects. It is on these latter
questions that the present study is focused. The term "blacklisting"
has been used, both in the interview and in this report, as the most
concise way of designating the aspect of employment practices with
which the study is concerned, without any intention of asserting the
actual existence of a written list.

Let us first consider three contrasting views on the situation as pre-
sented by three of our respondents.

One actor who works both in radio and in television, appearing
about six times a week, though in minor capacities, asserts his political
views even before he is asked about "blacklisting" practices. In answer
to the question whether he would contribute his services without pay
to a benefit show, he says: "If there are any politics involved I'd refuse.
I would refuse anything that has red tendencies or so-called liberal
tendencies. In other words, I'm not pink, I'm a true blue American."

When asked what would happen to a person in the industry who is
not a Communist now but who attended Communist Party meetings for
a short time 15 years ago and was now named in a magazine as a Com-
munist sympathizer, he answers: "He would probably lose his job."
And he adds: "Anyone can make a mistake; if it is certain he is not a
Communist now I don't believe in crucifying him. But you must always
be on your guard."

Asked about what that man could do to keep his job, he says:
"Declare his position, state his repentance and his allegiance to our way
of life and beliefs. That is all he can do and may God help him."

When asked whether he believes that "blacklisting" is now practised
in the industry, he says: "No, I think there is a silent avoiding of red
sympathizers in every field of entertainment." But "Blacklisting does
more good than harm. Because one bad apple could spoil a whole
barrel. I don't think people who are red sympathizers have any right
to be among loyal and true Americans. They can always be replaced."

This man says he cannot answer many of the other relevant questions
for lack of knowledge. But there are some exceptions: He thinks a
person usually knows whether he is on a list. "I don't think there is any
mystery about it." As one of the reasons for "blacklisting" he states:

238

"An actor should be a living example of Americanism." And he feels
that "red sympathizers and troublesome actors" are most likely to be
"blacklisted". As an adjustment to the temper of the times in order to
avoid being criticized on political grounds he suggests: "Keep their
mouths shut. Do not get into any political discussions while engaged
in rehearsals." He thinks the situation with regard to "blacklisting" is
not changing; and he believes that the TV industry, more than radio,
is in favor of "blacklisting". He does not consider the problem as very
important.

By contrast, this is what a TV actor on a top level has to say:

He, too, thinks that a person named now for activities which ended
15 years ago would probably lose his job. But he adds a note of
cynicism with regard to differences between individuals in this respect:
"If the individual is needed he will be cleared somehow," implying that
those concerned with these procedures permit their own interest to
determine the fate of a man. He adds : "Networks have a dossier on
everybody, and something that they call derogatory information is col-
lected on every one they use, actor or writer. Network lawyers evaluate
this information. This leads to a lot of confusion because there are
other agencies evaluating such information. Some are more lenient
than others. This means some actors can appear on some programs but
not on others." And he concludes this description with a remark which
was made by several respondents in similar form: "I could be fired for
telling you this."

This man says "blacklisting" is currently practiced in the industry
and he considers it does more harm than good. "It sets up standards
which have little basis in reality. It's used as a weapon against people
who opposed the blacklist. This has nothing to do with politics. I think
it's un-American. And that goes for the blacklisting of the blacklisters
too. The whole thing has evil connotations."

"I don't know an advertising agency that doesn't have a list. The
networks have a list. We have a list. The program I'm connected with
has a white list, a list of people you can use, not that you can't use."

Asked for the reasons that may lead to a person being "blacklisted,"
he says: "The reasons are many. If you belong to the Communist Party
or to any group on the Attorney-General's list. If you sign a petition.
I know of one man who was blacklisted because he attended the funeral
of an actor who was a Communist. Even groups that aren't on the

239

Attorney-General's list are enough reason. Or you belong to the wrong
faction in the union. The union played a large part in it. They used
the threat of blacklisting to stay in power. Some agencies have recently
decided that union activities are not derogatory information. Others
still consider it derogatory."

On the sources of lists and the mechanics of operation, he says: "It
started with Red Channels; then came Counterattack, Mr. Johnson from
Syracuse and Aware, Inc. Johnson alerts people like the American
Legion. You know you are on the list because you don't work. Nobody
ever tells you officially why. If you pay you can get cleared. There are
300 radio and TV people affected by it." He thinks that nobody should
be on such a list.

The respondent sees two motives for a list: (1) ultra-patriotism and
(2) economic advantage. He thinks that information on people is sold.
He also claims to know of a case where professional jealousy led to a
political accusation. He feels some of the listers may think they are
doing a good job but he considers them pathological.

A third respondent, a prominent radio M.C., who has been in the
field for a long time, has much more to say about his work in general
than about "blacklisting," notwithstanding the many pointed questions
about it.

"I prefer radio to TV. It is easier. There are no hot lights. Every-
thing you do before the camera is fixed beforehand. The most import-
ant thing is not to step beyond the chalk line. But in radio some people
get a feeling it is a defeated thing. I don't believe this. Still, the most
difficult problem is the competition from TV. But radio will come
back. TV faces the problem of pay-as-you-go (subscription) TV.
Maybe radio will profit from it. I'd like to go over to the administra-
tive side; it all depends on whom you know. You can come in with
the best idea in the world — unless they know you they wouldn't give
you any consideration."

"People don't help each other much, anyhow. It's a jealous situation.
People feel: this guy might get ahead of me. Everything is so competi-
tive. You can't afford to go out of your way to help someone. There
is a minimum number of jobs and lots of people to fill them."

When it comes to the question of "blacklisting," this man says: "I
don't know whether it does more harm or more good. Maybe it's un-
important. There are many without jobs who haven't been blacklisted.'

240

And asked whether a friend who now gets into difficulties because
he once had attended Communist Party meetings would ask the re-
spondent's advice, the man answers: "No; people don't help each other
in this industry. Well, I could give him sympathy, but not advice."

Asked about adjustments to the temper of the times, he adds: "Watch
your step. Call the FBI if in doubt. Don't do things that might bring
you in an unfavorable light. It's not wise to get involved in politics."
He feels "blacklisting" is not important, since "some of the finest actors
are unemployed without being blacklisted."

These three respondents are, of course, different in many ways. The
areas of difference on which we wish to focus here are the beliefs that
"blacklisting" is currently practised, and attitudes toward "blacklisting."

Many of the respondents regard "blacklisting" as just another pos-
sible source of insecurity in employment, to which they often attach no
more importance than to others. When they were asked to compare
the importance of the "blacklisting" problem with that of other prob-
lems they had discussed in the interview, only about one-third of those
who expressed an opinion felt that it was very important. The rest
regarded it as of minor or no importance.

But whatever the degree of importance they attach to "blacklisting,"
there are very few among those who discuss it whose views resemble
that of the first man quoted. It is the second example which represents
the most frequent position among those interviewed. A few simple
figures may summarize the views and values of the people we inter-
viewed. It should be kept in mind that these figures are, at best, a
crude indication of general trends, for reasons explained earlier in the
report: The number of respondents is small (64), and it is impossible
to determine to what extent they represent the views of the entire in-
dustry. All that can be claimed is that these respondents were chosen
without bias or any possible foreknowledge of their views and opinions.
(The interested reader will find the responses to all questions in greater
detail in Appendix a.)

1. Do you think blacklisting is practiced in TV and radio now?

ANSWERS: Top level Others All in sample

Not responsive, no answer, no knowledge 10% 23% 19%

Of those who answer:

Yes 89% 82% 85%

No 11% 18% 15%

241

2. How do you feel about blacklisting? In general, do you think it
does more harm or more good?

ANSWERS: Top level Others All in sample

Not responsive, no answer, no knowledge 10% 23% 19%
Of those who answer:

More harm 100% 91% 94%

More good 0% 9% 6%

3. What are some of the things a person might have done which could
result in his being blacklisted?

ANSWERS: Top level Others

Not responsive, no answer, no knowledge 10% 18%

Of those who answer:

Suspected of past or present Com-
munist or fellow traveler activities. 33% 44%
Other reasons, but no mention of
Communist or fellow traveler activi-
ties (e.g.: accidental or personal asso-
ciations: current non-communist, po-
litical activities; union activities; etc.) 67% 56%

4. Are the listers sincere and patriotic?

All in sample

Top level

Others
39%

ANSWERS:

Not responsive, no answer, no knowledge

Of those who answer:

Yes, sincere

Sincere but misguided, crazy

Some sincere, others not

Insincere, profiteers, pathological

5. Is professional jealousy involved?
ANSWERS:

Not responsive, no answer, no knowledge
Of those who answer:

Jealousy involved

Jealousy not involved

6. What parts of the industry are for the blacklist?
ANSWERS: Top level Others
Not responsive, no answer, no knowledge 5% 34%
Of those who answer: *

41%

59%

All in sample

0%
37%
16%

47%

Top level

35%

100%
0%

19%

22%
26%
33%

Others
41%

50%
50%

11%

28%
22%
39%

All in sample
39%

67%

33%

All in sample

25%

* Total is more than 100% because some respondents mentioned more than one
group.

242

Ad agencies 26% 41% 35%

Sponsors 37% 34% 35%

Networks, employers, management 26% 14% 19%

Individuals (no group) 26% 31% 29%

7. Suppose that someone now in the industry is named as a Communist
sympathizer in a magazine. He really isn't now, although fifteen
years ago he attended Communist Party meetings for a short time.
What do you think will happen about his job?

ANSWERS: Top level Others All in sample

Not responsive, no answer, no knowledge 10% 9% 9%
Of those who answer:

He'll probably lose job 55% 53% 54%

He'll probably keep job 28% 20% 22%

Fifty-fifty chance to keep job 17% 27% 24%

8. Just to give some perspective, how important do you feel black-
listing is in relation to other problems in the industry?

ANSWERS: Top level Others All in sample

Not responsive, no answer, no knowledge 5% 32% 23%

Of those who answer:

Very important 47% 30% 37%

Minor importance 36% 60% 51%

No importance 17% 10% 12%

9. In regard to blacklisting, would you say that the situation is getting
better or getting worse, or staying about the same?

ANSWERS: Top level Others All in sample

Not responsive, no answer, no knowledge 10% 34% 27%
Of those who answer:

Better 95% 80% 85%

Worse 0% 10% 6%

About the same 5% 10% 9%

These figures show that those who express an opinion are convinced
that "blacklisting" is being practised; they regard it virtually unani-
mously as harmful; the majority of the people interviewed think that
persons are "blacklisted" for reasons other than membership in the
Communist Party or other subversive organizations, or entertaining
Communist sympathies; opinions are about equally divided as to
whether those who produce lists are motivated by sincere patriotism,
but most of those who believe the listers are sincere consider them

243

misguided; many believe that professional jealousy is involved in
"blacklisting"; among the parts of the industry believed to favor the
"blacklist" those most frequently mentioned are advertising agencies
and sponsors; the majority believe that a casual attendance at Com-
munist Party meetings 15 years ago could now cost an individual his
position and livelihood; and the overwhelming majority believe that
the situation with regard to "blacklisting" is improving.

With regard to the importance attached to "blacklisting," interpreta-
tions must be particularly cautious. While it is true that one third of
those who express an opinion when asked about this matter say they
regard "blacklisting" as a very important issue, it is also true that only
six persons mention "blacklisting" spontaneously when talking about
their work in general. At best, these figures set the upper and lower
bounds for gauging the importance attached to this matter.

It is not our task to decide whether these beliefs and opinions are
justified by reality or not. As beliefs and opinions they have their psy-
chological reality, with its impact on the morale of talent.

Psychological Themes

Most of the respondents talked at great length, on the average for two
and three-quarters hours. No interview lasted for less than one hour;
one extended to six hours. Out of this rich material a number of psy-
chological themes emerged which cannot possibly be captured in
monosyllabic answers to complicated questions. The identification of
these themes and of their relation to some more general aspects of
morale (even though as already indicated we cannot take their statistical
incidence too seriously), provides some basis for estimating the im-
plications of "blacklisting" for the radio and television industry. Before
we can discuss the picture as a whole, however, we need to review these
themes individually.
Fear

Perhaps the most outstanding theme is the recurring evidence of fear
in the persons we talked to. Mostly fear of losing one's job. But also
fear of getting involved in issues, of committing oneself to an opinion,
of having to face questions of right or wrong and of one's own values in
a complex world. For about a quarter of the respondents the interview
itself created a certain amount of fear, more or less openly admitted.
From question 14 onwards, where the interview turns to "blacklisting"

and related matters, the written assurance of complete anonymity was

244

frequently reread by the respondents. Questions were asked from here
on about the purpose and sponsorship of the study; small jokes — "per-
haps you are an F.B.I, agent?" — were made, revealing a certain amount
of tension. The interviewers had been instructed to note any uneasiness
in the respondent, and the place where it appeared. Here are some
of their comments:

"All the questions on blacklisting were difficult with respondent.
It was like pulling words out of her mouth. She would have gone on
all day to talk about herself, but when it came to blacklisting she did
not like it."

"Some questions the respondent felt were an attempt to evaluate
his integrity and he showed some resentment."

"I don't believe he was quite honest in denying any more knowl-
edge about blacklisting."

"He was initially cautious, then expansive — until the questions
became controversial. He then became extremely cautious and often
evasive. He made several contradictory statements."

"His anxiety about the blacklist questions was apparent when he
nearly broke off the interview. The letter of introduction calmed
him right down to the point where he could continue."

"Respondent absolutely refused to discuss the subject in more
detail. At the end of the interview I told her that others had been
more articulate. She said, 'That's good — but one gets conditioned'.
Throughout the interview I assured her of anonymity. To no avail."
In other cases where fear was less obvious, its existence could none-
theless be inferred. A good indicator is the frequency of evasive or
"don't know" answers to questions. For questions dealing with the
industry in general, apart from "blacklisting," the average percentage
of evasive, unclassifiable or "don't know" answers was just under 5%.
For questions dealing with "blacklisting" this average percentage was
28%. In view of the fact that almost 9 out of 10 of the sample were
regular readers of the daily New York press, and virtually all of them
readers of the industry's publications and in view of what others said
about the concern of themselves and their colleagues with the issue,
this percentage seems unreasonably high if interpreted at face value as
lack of knowledge.

The evasion of an answer by claiming lack of knowledge is facili-
tated, of course, by the fact that the actual procedures and policies

245

employed are not publicly announced. One executive, in describing the
screening procedures he used emphasized that he made it a point never
to pass on to anyone the information he had obtained about a person.
All he would tell a casting director, for example, was: use or do not use
X. He, as well as many other respondents, said that political labels
were judiciously avoided and that the term used to describe a non-
employable person was: X. is "controversial." The person so designated
is, according to the views of many who commented on this point, not
informed of the decision made against him. One actor said: "Nobody
is told that he is on a list, because under some law — libel, slander or
character defamation — that would lay the employer open to a libel
suit. They would have to prove that a certain individual was unworthy
of a job." Of those who answered the question, "Is a person ever told
that he is not hired because he is on a list?", only about 12% think a
person is usually told that he is on a list; and even they often say that
such information is given unofficially "by the grapevine," "a secretary
may let it out," "if he has a friend in a position to know he may tell
him."

It is, of course, quite possible that the secrecy surrounding the pro-
cedures, decisions, and reasons for decisions is meant to be not only
in the interest of the company but also in the interest of the talent. But
it is doubtful whether this latter purpose is actually fulfilled. For in
the absence of clear information on procedures and criteria for deciding
that a person is unemployable, rumor and hearsay take over; two factors
most effective in reaching many, but hardly effective in spreading accu-
rate knowledge. The secrecy surrounding the implementation of these
employment policies must inevitably increase fear.

Frustration

Fear has its consequences in the way people behave to each other. It
has already been pointed out that the general job insecurity affects
relations of people in the industry. The fear engendered by the "black-
list" has its special effect. We were told of a man whose political
activities in the distant past, (from which he had effectively dissociated
himself and about which he had given full information to the F.B.I.),
were about to be made public. This man felt the urge to inform a few
of his colleagues of the factual situation before his story would hit the
headlines. He thought of arranging a private luncheon for this purpose.
When he approached a close colleague and friend with this idea, the

246

friend said he would under no circumstances attend such a meeting,
nor did he believe would anybody else who knew what the luncheon
was to be about.

This undermining of mutual confidence and support through fear
is apparently quite frequent. The interviewees were asked whether they
knew of a case of "blacklisting" and of the surrounding circumstances.
Most of them (about five out of six) answered the question affirma-
tively. These persons were then asked how the colleagues and how the
employer of the "blacklisted" persons behaved in the situation. Actual
help from colleagues was reported by about a quarter of those familiar
with such a case; sympathetic attitudes among colleagues without active
help was mentioned by many more.

Among colleagues the wish to help coupled with the difficulty of
doing so creates frustration. One man in describing a case said: "He
was a fine actor, and it was a gross injustice. People cared about him
as a person too and would have liked to help. But what can you do?"

The phrase "but what can you do?" is often used. One person said:
"Often there is no special occasion to do something. They aren't
always fired in a dramatic scene. They just aren't hired. They don't
get a day in court. They are simply not employed. What can you do?"

And another: "Fellow artists are weak, and their attitude is un-
important—they are all working people. They would be afraid to
help him."

Of course, there are also cases in which effective help has been given.
One of our respondents reported that he and some friends had raised
the money for a colleague in trouble so that he could hire a lawyer.
Now that colleague was working again in the industry. But such inci-
dents seem to be quite rare. As a rule, the difficulties of a colleague
create deep frustration among those who want to help but feel impotent
and unable to do anything.

Such frustration resulting from a sense of helplessness is intensified
by the role the unions are said to play in this situation. According to
a number of the respondents, the manner in which anti-communism
affects the employment situation in the industry is, and has been for
some years, the cause of bitter fights within the unions. The merging
of previously separate unions and other organizational matters make
the history of these unions very complex. This is not the place to
present these complicated matters; nor have we made a study of the

247

position actually taken by the unions. What should be mentioned here
is that some respondents feel particularly frustrated when discussing
their unions. One man said: "There is a feeling of futility; I'm not as
willing to go out and fight as I once was. I fought in the union. We
won office for a couple of years. Then we figured factionalism was
gone and put through a resolution to disband sides. Everyone lived up
to the bargain except those who took over one committee; they are in
complete control. They intimidate and label everyone a Communist
who opposes them. Many were thus labelled even though they had
been cleared by the F.B.I. For example because they opposed a loyalty
pledge." Several others said too that opposition in union meetings on
union issues was regarded as a dangerous undertaking. And some
reported that attendance at union meetings had rapidly fallen off within
recent years. They implied that a major factor had been a sense of
frustration related to fear of political repercussions for those active in
the unions.

Constriction of Activities and Associations

Persons in our sample talk of self-imposed restrictions on the range
of their ordinary activities in response to "blacklisting." Respondents
were asked what adjustments, if any, they felt obliged to make to the
temper of the times in order to avoid possible political criticism. In
particular, they were asked about discussing their political views around
the studio, about being friendly with certain people, joining organiza-
tions, and special caution, if any, in the choice of reading matter. There
are some persons in the sample who indignantly deny such restrictions,
or even the need for them. There are others who describe certain pre-
cautions they take; but there are none who feel that these precautions
have meaning or benefit anybody.

One actor's sarcastic exaggeration conveys the tone of inner rebellion
felt by some, even though he was obviously satirizing the situation:
"Isolate yourself, render no opinion on any subject. Keep closely
confined counsel, make love to no woman you don't ultimately marry,
divorce your wife under no condition, avoid making enemies for any
reason, love everyone and be loved by everyone, and above all be
neutral about everything. Don't go to public assemblies, avoid ban-
quets, meetings; and, when overheard by anyone else, be speaking
exclusively about the subject of mother or romance."

More realistically, another reports: "My wife had a copy of Karl

248

Marx that she got when she was 16 or 17 years old. One night we were
having a producer and his wife over for dinner and we didn't want him
to see this book, so she removed it from the shelf."

In an extreme case, a respondent said that a job-seeking actor would
not be wise to walk into an advertising agency with a copy of The
Nation or the New York Post under his arm. For the run-of-the-mill
precautions, one staff-writer sums it up thus: "With the exception of
the fellows who are admitted Communists or of those who took the
Fifth Amendment and have nothing further to lose, everyone else tends
to pull in his horns."

There are quite a few persons in the sample for whom such con-
striction is relatively easy. They are willing to comply with what they
perceive to be appropriate behavior because they are so dedicated to
their profession that they do not care too much about matters outside
of it. To them it appears to be an almost meaningless concession to the
climate of the tunes.

It is particularly striking how little exception to such constriction
writers take, even when it affects the content of their work. One of
them said: "Nowadays, it would certainly be a mistake to let the under-
dog win in the end. So I don't." Another one mentioned that there
was now somewhat more stereotyping of content than there had been.
But he felt the change was slight and often hardly perceptible. It was,
he said, for example, no longer "approved" to make a banker the villain
in a play. "Of course, there often is no particular reason why the villain
should be a banker; I give him another profession." This man was
asked, in the interview, how he felt about such restrictions. He shrugged
his shoulders, and started to recite a long series of other, non-political
restrictions, which a writer had to follow in any case for every sponsor.
The restricted choice of occupation for the villain of his imagination
was of minor concern to him.

Target for Suspicion

One theme on which respondents elaborated and which helps to
make constriction acceptable is the conviction of many that "it can
happen to everyone." As one man said: "Anyone can get blacklisted.
It's such a haphazard method of picking."

But if one looks closer into the statements of respondents about the
universality of the threat, it emerges that what is actually meant is that
suspicion, and its consequences for employability, is not limited to Com-

249

munists and subversive elements, but is directed against a large variety
of persons.

In several instances it is said that "idealists" are likely to get into
trouble. Sometimes the explanation is added, because they "were
swindled into a benefit performance" or "doing something for Loyalist
Spain"; but sometimes there is no qualification or explanation, as if the
respondent takes it for granted that idealism leads to being accused or
suspected of Communist affiliations.

Some respondents have so little respect for those who originate these
employment policies that they do not trust them to know what a Com-
munist is. And they claim that their observations confirm the complete
absence of responsible and politically sophisticated criteria. One person
sees suspicion directed against "the more intellectual groups; the ones
that are serious about their work." Another fears for "those who delve
more into problems, because they are more inclined to experiment."
Or: "Liberals are likely to get into trouble. They tend to find flaws in
the existing world and write about them. They are interested in all
sorts of things and pay less attention to public taboos."

In line with the notion that people who have social ideals are more
likely than others to get into trouble is the following comment: "Those
who are outspoken about wanting to improve race relations" (may be
in trouble). "If one lives in the Village, it's bad. Sometimes even if
you let it be known that you are a Democrat. If you are a member of
the A.D.A., it is murder."

Finally, a number of people commented that they personally felt
quite safe because they were too unimportant to be discriminated
against. "Frankly, I don't think I have big enough a name to get into
trouble. Names is all they (the listers) want."

A contrasting view is mentioned by a number of executives who felt
that the extent of "blacklisting" was exaggerated because it was easier
on one's vanity to attribute failure to get a job to the "blacklist" than
to one's lack of talent. Whether or not this is so in some cases we are,
of course, unable to say, since no person who believed himself "black-
listed" was included in the sample. That other persons, not included in
our small sample, use "blacklisting" as an excuse to cover up their own
lack of ability, is, of course, possible. It is, however, not very likely
that one would call himself "blacklisted" without good evidence since
such a rumor alone may destroy further job chances.

250

Cynicism

Most of our respondents believe that the "blacklisting" procedures,
initiated and defended in the name of national security, have no bear-
ing whatsoever on national security. They were all aware of the
watertight system of control over content before it goes on the air
which excludes possibilities of direct subversion. Some of them pointed
out that engineers, who are in the most crucial position to do harm in
an emergency, were not affected by these policies. None of them men-
tioned an argument which is often made elsewhere, namely that out-
standing performers might use a good deal of their income to help the
cause of communism financially. Most of them, as already indicated,
had doubts about the motivation of the listers. When this doubt was
voiced in a more charitable spirit, the listers were called misguided or
crazy; in a less charitable mood the adjectives were insincere, profiteer-
ing, money-greedy, hypocritical, and the like.

Such an evaluation of the motivation behind the "blacklisting" pro-
cedures, and of their ineffectiveness, taken together with the sense of
frustration with regard to decency in human relations, the constriction
of activities without a justifying conviction, and the belief that unfair
and unintelligible criteria are used which get people into serious trouble
— collectively, these add up to an attitude of cynicism. It is not sur-
prising, therefore, that when the question was raised as to why powerful
networks and sponsors complied with the requests made by such doubt-
ful characters, the answer was, as a rule: money.

There are some practices cited by respondents which lend support
to this all-embracing cynical explanation. One major employer, for
example, allegedly checks on personnel not once and for all, but insists
that every new assignment of a person be confirmed only after a new
check has been performed. One person in the sample, commenting on
the need for repeated clearance, declared he could understand it only
in terms of a rumor he had heard: there was an alleged fee of $7.50
a person had to pay to one of the outside organizations which had set
up its own machinery for "clearing" personnel, whenever a question
was raised. More open support for the assumption that it is all a
question of money derives from several statements, allegedly made to
personnel by some networks and advertising agencies, that it is in the
financial interest of the sponsor to avoid the use of "controversial"
persons.

251

This is not to assert that the persons we interviewed were blind to
the general trend of public opinion. On the contrary, they mentioned
again and again that what was happening in the entertainment industry
fitted well into the national climate of thought — or "the national hys-
teria", according to some — and was possible only because of it. But
what they felt was that here it was the catering to a mood rather than
the fulfillment of a good purpose, and for reasons of personal profit.

Of the persons who expressed an opinion as to whether anyone
should be excluded from work in the industry because of his political
beliefs, the great majority felt that no one should be; qualification for
the job is the only criterion which they repeatedly stressed. As they
perceive those who pay for their services to hold very different views,
they keep quiet for the sake of the job in the conviction that there is
in this respect little room for fairness in the entertainment industry.
They submit to what they believe to be wrong.

A Conflict of Conscience

Yet the respondents' views of cynicism in management are not
verified when one discusses the situation with executives of networks,
advertising agencies and packaging firms. In all but one of these inter-
views the existence of certain procedures to check on the views and
political associations of radio and television personnel was discussed;
in no case with either enthusiasm or cynicism. The attitudes of these
executives is expressed by the following typical comments:

"I have to do it. I hate doing it. Everyone else in the same boat feels
that way."

"I have spent many sleepless nights over it. It's hard to know what
to do."

"I hate it, but let's be realistic. If we admit that public opinion won't
stand for using a Communist like Paul Robeson on the air, then we
have to have criteria for selection. And since there are no criteria
which can be used, we are where we are."

"I have fought for a few people in spite of opposition. But I had to
give in in a number of cases. I have hated myself for doing it."

"I think it is a terrible, tragic mistake. But I confess to you that if
one of these outside organizations would ask me to pay them $200 a
month to protect the interests of this organization, I am afraid I would
pay it."

"Don't call me a security officer. I am just here to protect the inter-

252

ests of our clients. Controversial people are bad for their business. I
don't have to be ashamed of what I am doing. It is just a job to safe-
guard our clients."

Those who have worked out procedures for screening have given
considerable thought to them and have undoubtedly spent thousands
of working hours and much money on this, by their own standards,
unenviable task. Nonetheless, nobody claimed to have found the right
procedure that would avoid possible injustice to individuals.

In the beginning of the interviews with executives, they were first
acquainted with the results being reported here and asked if they cared
to comment on them. With one exception where the attitude was com-
pletely non-committal, the findings were not brushed aside as of no
importance to the industry. One or two executives felt it hard to believe
that morale with regard to "blacklisting" should be as low as indicated;
several said they had expected it to be low. None took it lightly.

All but one of the executives were ready to discuss ways of improv-
ing the situation, though some expressed skepticism about the chances
of doing so. Explicitly or implicitly it was clear that they regarded the
sponsors as having of necessity the final word in these matters even
though, as was pointed out on several occasions, it was not the sponsor
who carried legal responsibility for what went on the air.

Divided Responsibility and Lack of Communication

Another theme was frequently introduced both by talent and by the
leaders of the industry: the difficulty of establishing a change of policy
in an industry in which so many diverse groups have a legitimate say,
and where direct communication between policy makers and talent is
the exception rather than the rule.

As has been indicated, this difficulty is general and genuine in areas
having nothing to do with employment policies. With regard to "black-
listing," it is compounded because other private individuals and or-
ganizations have managed to insert themselves into the complicated
chain of command in this respect. It is not part of this report to
describe in detail the nature or the activities of such outside groups
which try to influence the employment policies in the industry. All that
can be said here is that many of the respondents are aware of their
existence and regard them as a further complication in an already
complicated system of shared responsibilities.

One TV writer who felt that "blacklisting" had damaged the entire

253

industry put his views thus: "In itself it (blacklisting) is an admission
on the part of the TV industry that prerogatives that should be retained
by them can be usurped by outside sources. And once they have started
to give in to these sources, they will have to give in more."

This alleged absence of individual responsibility for policy decisions
about "blacklisting" makes it plausible that the impersonal managerial
"they" are blamed for everything, to the detriment of morale in the
industry.

This is made all the easier because many policy decisions and
struggles fought by management in the interest of curtailing outside
interference are kept confidential. In the discussion with policy makers
a number of incidents were mentioned which clearly show top execu-
tives asserting individual responsibility, ignoring outside organizations,
defending individual performers and striving to preserve an atmosphere
suitable for constructive work. These incidents are known only to
those directly involved. They cannot be fully identified in this report.
The executives revealed them on the condition that their organizations
not be mentioned. There can be little doubt that these incidents actually
occurred; their constructive impact on morale in the industry would,
of course, have been infinitely greater had they been revealed in full.

One top executive, for example, mentioned a show sponsored by a
producer of well-known consumer goods. After the show he received
a number of letters threatening boycott of the goods unless a "subver-
sive" actor was removed from the cast. The top executive was con-
vinced that the accusation was false. He communicated with the
sponsor, who had received similar mail. Both decided to ignore the
threat. Nothing more was heard about it. The business of the sponsor
is as flourishing as ever.

Another top executive said that his organization was not very much
impressed by mail accusing individual performers of the wrong political
connections. He had learned to ignore such correspondence when he
realized that the largest number of such letters he ever received hi an
individual case was 200. On the other hand, when one favorite show
altered its time schedule, 8,000 letters of protest came in. Nevertheless
the show lost nothing of its popularity on the new schedule.

Several executives said they knew that some of their biggest sponsors
were annoyed by the interferences of one Mr. Johnson (the owner of
three grocery stores in Syracuse who is said to be engaged in a one-man

254

campaign to eliminate from employment in the entertainment field
persons whose political views he suspects) and ignored his threats of
boycott without damage to themselves.

To be sure, there were other indications in the interviews with policy
makers which confirm the beliefs and views of talent working in the
entertainment field with regard to abdicating responsibility for deci-
sions, or doing under one's own responsibility what outsiders clamored
for. But the point to be made here is that the secrecy surrounding all
such decisions leads inevitably to the assumption among some propor-
tion of our respondents that concern with decency and fairness for
victims of political accusation is foreign to the policy makers.

In summary, the psychological themes emerging from that part of
the interview which focussed on "blacklisting" are unmistakably,
though in a one-sided fashion, related to the general employment situa-
tion which confronts the industry's talent. Enthusiasm for their jobs
does not influence the views that the persons interviewed take towards
"blacklisting". But those features of the general employment situation
to which talent objects are closely interwoven with their views on
"blacklisting". This is the picture which results, a picture often only
intensifying already existing trends: "blacklisting" procedures are met
with fear, frustration, a conviction that innocent people are suspected,
constriction and cynicism on the part of talent; an unresolved conflict
of conscience on the part of management, with a notion that going
along with the temper of the times is required if they are to serve the
best interest of their clients. The situation is further confused by the
fact that responsibility is hard to allocate in a field in which many rela-
tively independent units cooperate. Thus, outside pressure groups have
achieved a foothold in the situation. And since communication between
policy makers and talent is rare and secrecy surrounds many proce-
dures, even the deliberate efforts of leaders in the industry to protect
talent remain unacknowledged. Thus — in spite of executive concern,
thoughtfulness, and conflict of conscience — "blacklisting" procedures
continue in the industry.

Neither among talent nor among policy leaders is there much con-
viction that the national interest is served by "blacklisting" procedures.
If the industry as a whole nevertheless complies with what they perceive
to be the climate of opinion, other motives are involved: the wish to
keep a job and the wish to keep a client. These are strong motives,

255

firmly embedded in the structure of the industry. Even though they
are not the only motives operating it would be misleading to disregard
them. Unless the industry becomes convinced that jobs and clients can
be kept without "blacklisting" procedures, these procedures will con-
tinue to plague radio and television.

An Examination of the Rationale for "Blacklisting"

One cannot look at the manner in which anti-communism affects the
industry's employment policies without raising the question whether
the function served by these policies is of such importance that it war-
rants their psychological consequences. If these policies are required
in the interest of national security or if their existence improved the
quality of the materials that go on the air, the question would have to
be answered in the affirmative. The situation would then be much the
same as it is with the federal security program for government em-
ployees: there, too, undesirable consequences exist. But since there is
an overwhelming consensus that security checks of federal employees
are required in the national interest, an improvement of procedures is
called for, rather than the abolition of the program.

The situation is, however, different in the entertainment industry.
We have not come across anyone who maintains that our national
security is safeguarded by these procedures. And no one argues seri-
ously that the content of radio and television programs has been affected
by "blacklisting", for better or for worse. The industry itself seems
convinced of two facts: subversive ideas were not propagated over the
air before "blacklisting" started; and the accusation that the very best
people were eliminated from the air by "blacklisting" is for the most
part without foundation.

If the belief nevertheless persists that the industry cannot get along
without using some check on the political views and affiliations of the
talent it employs, this is due to a chain of assumptions about psycho-
logical responses including assumptions about the public at large and
about what people refer to as "sponsor psychology".

To speak of "sponsor psychology" already implies an assumption
which is, to say the least, questionable. It may make sense to speak
about the psychological responses of a group of people who find them-
selves in the same situation and are exposed to similar policies and
practices. Sponsors are not in such a situation. All they have in

256

common is that they are supporting radio and television financially
because they expect — and receive — a return for their advertising
dollars. Apart from this, their psychological reactions will differ and
be moulded by the very special situations in which each of them finds
himself. What is more, since sponsors are not in close touch with each
other, their reactions will presumably be quite diverse even to common
problems. In the thinking of the industry, however, there seems to be
little recognition of individuality in sponsor reactions.

A most significant corollary of this assumption about the sponsors
is the belief that they are exclusively motivated by profit considerations.
To be sure, they are in business to make a profit. But it is unjustifiable
to assume that American industrialists and business men are so thor-
oughly dominated by the profit motive as to pursue it ruthlessly with-
out permitting any considerations of fairness, due process and general
decency to deter them from achieving this one goal. American industry
has long since discovered that profit and decency are not mutually
exclusive. There is no reason to believe that this lesson learned since
the days of the robber barons has been forgotton.

A second assumption concerns one particular group of sponsors, the
production goods sponsors rather than the consumption goods sponsors.
The latter obviously wish to sell their goods directly through advertis-
ing. The production goods manufacturers advertise to the general pub-
lic for the purposes of obtaining good will. Now the assumption is
made that sponsors equate good will with the absence of criticism. It is
conceivable that some sponsors actually have this rather narrow notion
of good will. But it is hardly conceivable that many do not interpret
good will in a more positive way: that good will is generated from a
positive appreciation of what a company does to make superior enter-
tainment and education available to the public. In other words, the
assumption that all companies evaluate one letter of criticism as more
important than one — or even ten, as it is said — letters of praise, is not
justified without proof. It is hard to imagine that industrial concerns
are actually judging their standing in the community by so inappropriate
a yardstick as the expression of dissatisfaction by a minute fraction of
the general public.

With regard to the general public, the fundamental assumption is
that the public treats shopping as a political act. It has already been
pointed out that this is unlikely. But much the same idea, less extremely

257

formulated, appears to carry weight in the industry. The assumption is
made that an unquestioned reputation of a sponsor will lead the public
to choose his brand rather than that of a producer about whose policies
questions have been asked; furthermore, that the public actually does
ask questions about employment policy, or is aware of procedures in
that area. To the best of our knowledge these assumptions about the
public have never been definitely proved either right or wrong. But
there is some fragmentary evidence to the effect that they are ques-
tionable. In those cases where networks and sponsors have chosen to
ignore a threat of boycott, mentioned earlier in this report, no unfavor-
able public reactions ensued. Moreover, there does not appear to be an
unfavorable response to the efforts of the companies that use more
lenient standards and employ persons excluded by other companies for
political reasons.

Suggestions for Change

Those who draw from the foregoing analysis the conclusion that
morale with regard to "blacklisting" in the industry should and could
be better than it is will be concerned with the question of how to im-
prove the situation. This question was actually the focus of interest in
the discussions with top executives of the industry. On the assumption,
questioned only by one of them, that the morale survey identified cor-
rectly significant aspects of morale, in spite of the small number of
respondents, they were asked to comment on a variety of possible
procedures for improvement of the situation. Most of the procedures
suggested for discussion were adaptations of plans and ideas which have
been talked about in the industry for several years and had therefore
had the benefit of critical evaluation by those who would have to imple-
ment them. Two factors justified going over such old ground. First,
while none of these plans had been adopted, the reasons for their rejec-
tion were largely unknown. It was thought that an understanding of
why the industry had turned down previous plans might make it pos-
sible to develop new ones which avoided objectionable features. Sec-
ond, there was the possibility that one of the reasons for rejecting these
plans previously was not that they were unsound but that policy
makers felt there was little reason for doing anything about "black-
listing" in the belief that it had no appreciable consequences for the
ordinary running of their organizations. Should the results of our

258

survey modify this belief where it existed, a reconsideration of old plans
in the light of new evidence might occur.

One of these plans had been suggested originally by lawyers outside
the industry and also, with modifications, by the American Federation
of Television and Radio Artists. Its basic idea was the establishment of
an advisory council to the industry, composed of leading clergymen
of the three major religions, who would deal with individual cases in an
individual and confidential way, communicating to the employer only
their final judgment as to the general trustworthiness of a person.

The rationale for this plan is as follows: problems which may arise
about the employability of a person are largely those of conscience,
ethical standards and forgiveness for mistakes made in the past. The
most widely respected experts on such problems in our society are
religious leaders; their word, it was felt, would command respect and
safeguard organizations against accusations of negligence or lack of
concern.

While some positive features of this plan were recognized by prac-
tically everyone, there was little enthusiasm for it. Negative features
were pointed out and its general applicability and effectiveness were
doubted. The objection was raised that the plan would inevitably dis-
criminate against a person not identified with one of the three major
religions. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the technique of referral
to such an advisory council posed serious problems (and these prob-
lems were regarded as unsolved also in other related plans suggesting
advisory councils of different composition). There are basically two
methods of referral: self -referral or referral by the employer. Self-
referral raises the question as to the evaluation of persons who do not
choose to take this step. To make the plan compulsory for all would
certainly defeat its spirit by imposing an infringement of individual
freedom. If self-referral occurred only in cases of persons already in
trouble, "clearance" by an advisory council would have little value
since many employers apparently feel that the damage has already been
done by having the individual become "controversial" in the mind of
the public.

Referral by the employer, on the other hand, obviously presupposes
that the employer has already acquired some knowledge about a per-
son which leads him to doubt his employability. Such acquisition of
knowledge is possible only if the employer has his own procedures for

259

checking on the political beliefs and associations of personnel, or, at
least, for dealing with information from sources outside the industry.
In other words the council would have to duplicate available machinery.
The plan thus loses one of the major advantages it appeared to offer,
at first sight, to the employers, namely to make it unnecessary for them
to concern themselves with these matters.

Another type of plan had as its basic idea the establishment of a code
of ethics for personnel practices with regard to political matters. Such
a code might be established either by a group of major sponsors, or by
one of the nation-wide organizations in the industry (the American
Association of Advertising Agencies or the Association of National
Advertisers), or by some other group or combination of groups. The
adoption of this code by individual organizations would be on a volun-
tary basis according to one version, or obligatory on membership or-
ganizations according to another.

The rationale for this plan is as follows: one of the aspects most
resented by employees in the current situation is the absence of known
standards and the secrecy surrounding procedures. Such secrecy, many
felt, was conducive to the abuse of fair play and to practices in a few
individual organizations which would not bear the light of day. The
enunciation of fair principles by responsible sections of the industry
might, it was felt, influence for the better the entire atmosphere and
combat cynicism and mistrust.

The reception of this proposal was not much better than that ac-
corded to the first plan, even though many executives agreed with its
aim and some of the positive features. Objections were numerous, in
particular with regard to the involvement of industry-wide representa-
tion. Legal counsels of various organizations had given this point
considerable thought and had concluded that such agreements might
eventually lead to a charge of conspiracy. In addition, some executives
expressed strong doubts that consensus on substantive matters could
be reached in any of the nation-wide organizations. Past attempts
in that direction had demonstrated sharp cleavages which they felt cer-
tain could not be reconciled.

On the other hand, at least one or two executives felt that any
initiative taken by sponsors and conveyed by them to advertising agen-
cies held some promise.

A third type of plan was based on an approach to the public. The

260

idea was that a statement by Mr. J. Edgar Hoover on the methods of
the F.B.I, with regard to the discovery of subversion might reassure
the public. Such a statement, it was suggested, broadcast and televised
over all stations might contrast the expert methods of the F.B.I, with
the fumbling and often interfering amateur efforts of untrained individ-
uals or groups.

The rationale behind this plan was as follows: as has been pointed
out, one justification for the employment procedures whose conse-
quences have been described, is the assumption that public opinion
is so deeply aroused about questions of political ideology, that shoppers
would turn against a manufacturer who followed different policies.

If this assumption is granted, the public needs reassurance about the
protection of internal security, information about the difference between
conspiracy and heresy, and education about the positive values of
diversity and of controversy in political life.

None of the executives objected to this plan. Its impact on the
general public and its effectiveness in allaying the fears in the industry
about negative public reaction, however, were doubted. Some execu-
tives pointed out that the problem needed to be tackled inside the
industry rather than in public statements. Others felt that no single
statement, however well publicized and by however important a per-
son, would turn the tide. One executive pointed out that some such
statement had actually been made in a more general context by Mr.
Hoover, and had not had an appreciable impact on groups responsible
for some of the organized mail campaigns used against individuals in
radio and television.

The discussions with executives in the industry thus certainly clari-
fied the reasons for the rejection of some approaches to the problem
of "blacklisting."

Paradoxically, perhaps, one of the general shortcomings inherent
in all the suggestions reviewed above is that they were too concrete. In
a sense, they all assumed to varying degrees that a consensus of opinon
on employment policies could or should exist in the industry. It does
not. And perhaps it should not in a country determined to maintain
diversity and to resist regimentation.

What remains to be done? It is impossible at present to suggest a
blue-print for action which would have a chance of being accepted.
There appears to be no shortcut to change through concerted and im-

261

mediate action. However, a public debate might be initiated to air
the facts as well as the assumptions, views and values of all concerned
with the problem, wherever they may stand. In argument and counter-
argument the necessary correctives of current procedures may be
forthcoming. While such a debate should exclude nobody, it should,
for obvious reasons, involve mostly those within the industry. It might
best be initiated by those who, by virtue of the structure of the indus-
try, are in the best position to contribute statements as individuals with
undivided responsibility, that is by sponsors. The stature of such a
debate would be enhanced if it were opened by presidents of the best
known industrial concerns in the country. In such an atmosphere, the
greatest barrier to change — the assumption that such matters cannot be
talked about — would soon fall. And as the minds of many would be
stimulated to concern themselves with these questions, faulty thinking
and fearful action may gradually disappear.

262

APPENDIX A

Interview Schedule and Numerical Results

NOTE: This appendix contains the interview schedule used for the morale
survey. After each question, the numerical results of the survey are pre-
sented. These figures should be regarded with the qualifications in mind
which have been emphasized in the body of the report.

Where answers add to 64 (number of respondents) only one answer per
question was counted. Where totals are not indicated, respondents gave more
than one answer to one question.

The letters D.K. and N.A. stand for: "don't know" and "no answer.*'

Not all the data presented in the following tables have been used in the

preceding report. To assist the reader in forming an independent opinion

on the material, tables not fully used in the report are marked by an

asterisk (*).

RESEARCH CENTER FOR HUMAN RELATIONS
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY

*1. First of all, would you tell me how long you

have been in

(RaHio)

(TV)

ANSWERS:

Predominantly in

Radio TV

All

1-2 years

1 6

3-4 years

5-8 years

2 19

9 years or more

20 8

Total

23 41

2. And what do yon Ho in (Radio) (TV) 9

ANSWERS: Talent

Producers and Directors

Writers and Commentators

Total

263

*3. FOR TALENT AND COMMENTATORS:

About how many times have you been on since this
time last year?
FOR WRITERS:

About how many of your scripts have been used since
this time last year?
FOR PRODUCERS AND DIRECTORS:
About how many shows have you put on since this
time last year?
ANSWERS: Less than once a month
1-4 times a month
2-5 times a week
6 times a week or more
Total

*4. What do you like most about working in (Radio) (TV)?

Why?
ANSWERS:

Economic factor ("the money")

Work is enjoyable, fun, interesting

Work is easy, working hours easy

Work is challenging

Work is worthwhile, contribution to culture

Camaraderie, nice interesting people

Entertaining other people

Fame; thrill of having millions as audience

Superior medium for expression

Creativity

Other reasons

D.K., N.A.

A
Wk.

verag
Mo.

s
Yr.

13
14
15

—
64"

All

Top level

(64)

(20)

5. What do you dislike most about working in (Radio) (TV)?

Why?

(Probe each dislike for adjustment): How do you handle that yourself?
OR Is there anything you can do about that?

ANSWERS: All Top level

Economic factor (job insecurity) 12 4

No sense of personal accomplishment, low standards,

technique more important than talent and quality 26 8

Nervous pressure 25 8

Medium controlled by non-creative people; (executives,
ad agencies, sponsors versus creativity); desire
to please everyone 32 16

264

Falsity in personal relations; methods of getting job

or advancement 6 1

Outside pressure groups 3 2

Blacklisting 6

Radio dying from TV competition 8 4

Other reasons 18 5

DK., N.A. 3 0

6. In general, would you rather work in (Radio) (TV) or would you
prefer doing something else?

Prefer (Radio) (TV)

Prefer (job description)

(industry)

Why is that?

ANSWERS: All Top level

Like what I am doing 29 9

Would like different job in industry (TV instead of

radio, serious instead of comic, etc.) 4

Prefer theater or movies 22 5

Like what I am doing but want also theater or movie 2 1

Prefer to leave industry 2 1

Other 1 0

D.K., N.A. J_ JO

64 20

*7. What do you consider the most difficult problem facing the (Radio)
(TV) industry today?

ANSWERS:

RADIO TV

Economic survival: Immaturity 5

Management does not meet Mediocrity, poor quality 29

TV challenge 7 High production costs 7

Radio must lose 6 Sponsors and ad agencies only

Challenge serious but radio interested in selling 8

can win 11 Blacklisting 1

Others 2 Others 7

D.K., N.A. 1 Management misjudges public 1

D.K., N.A. 0

*8. Who is the most successful (use respondent's job title)

in (Radio) (TV) today?

Why do you say (he) (she) is the most successful?

ANSWERS: All Top level

Makes most money 19 10

265

Does most work 12 5

Most able 39 11

Highest prestige with public (highest ratings) 13 4

Highest prestige within industry 8 3

D.K., N.A. 7 1

(Probe): Is this success actually deserved? — Is (he) (she) the best?

ANSWERS: All Top level

Yes 36 13

Yes, with qualifications 16 3
No 22
D.K., N.A. 10_

64 20

Apart from ability, how did (he) (she) actually get where (he) (she)

is now?

ANSWERS: All Top level

Reaffirms ability 12 5

Hard work 26 6

Lack of competition 4 0

Luck; good breaks 8 5

Knowing right people 12 4

Connivance 0

Nice person 2 1

Other 2 0

D.K., N.A. 9 3

*9. Have you ever turned down a job even though you were available?

Yes What were your No Can you think of any rea-

reasons? son that would induce you to turn

down a job?
(AND)

Can you think of any other reasons that would induce you to turn down
a job?

ANSWERS: All Top level

Yes 52 19

No 11 1

D.K., N.A. 1 0

64 20
REASONS:

Response in terms of unavailability 13 7

Not enough money 23 11

Bad part; low class work 6 3

Would have looked like a comedown 14 5

No professional advantage or satisfaction 33 10

266

Personality clash

Didn't want to work (vacation)

Against my principles (sensational, cheap, etc.)

Against my principles (political)

Inconvenient location

Other

D.K.. N.A.

*10. If someone asked you to contribute your services, without pay, to £
benefit show, would you accept?

Yes Are there any condi- No Can you give me your

ditions under which you reasons?

wouldn't do it?

It depends Under what conditions would you do it?

(AND)
Under what conditions wouldn't you do it?

ANSWERS: All Top level

Yes 38 12

No 1 0

It depends 23 8

Other 1 0

D.K., N.A. 1 0

64" 20~

CONDITIONS OF REFUSAL:

Time, job interference 13 4

Abuse of contributed services 14 7

Idiosyncratic professional reasons 6 4

Lack of sympathy for cause 25 9

Not for any political cause 3 0

Would make inquiries first about possible political exploitation 15 3

Not if left-wing cause 2 0

Not if possibly communistic, subversive, un-American cause 14 4

Other 1 o

D.K., N.A. 1 0

*11. Career-wise, where would you like to be in five years?

ANSWERS: All Top level

Where I am now 12 5

Greater income 6 0

Somewhat extended activities 15 5

Considerable extension of activities 10 0

At the top 3 i

Shift from staff position to free-lance 3 2

267

Shift from free-lance to staff position

Shift to other activity in industry

Shift from Radio to TV

Shift to (also) theater and movies

Shift to ad agency, author

D.K., N.A.

What do you think your chances are of achieving this?

ANSWERS:

No chance, poor chance

Fair chance

Good chance

Excellent chance

D.K., N.A.

What would help you achieve this?

ANSWERS:

Hard work, study, perseverance

Ability

Self-confidence, self-reliance

Having the right contacts

Good publicity

Pleasing my employer

Financial security to be able to work on it

Luck, chance, a good break

D.A., N.A.

What might hinder you in achieving this?

ANSWERS:

If I don't work hard enough, no perseverance

Lack of ability

Lack of self-confidence

Lack of right contacts

Lack of publicity

Difficulties with employer

Financial insecurity

Bad luck, no breaks

D.K., N.A.

All

Top level

"20

All

Top level

All

Top level

12. Do people in (Radio) (TV) help each other when they are in difficulties?

Yes It depends Where No Why not?

would they help and where

wouldn't they?

(Probe): Where would they draw the line?

268

13. In regard to people with whom you work, can you generally tell from
the way they act towards you who you could really count on?

Yes How do you tell — can No Why is that?

you tell me about that?

ANSWERS (combined): All Top level

Industry personnel particularly helpful 27 10

Industry personnel particularly unhelpful 6 1

Helpful and unhelpful 14 4

No difference to other industries 11 4

D.K., N.A. 6 1

64 "20

14. Now a different question:

Suppose that someone now in (Radio) (TV) is named as a Communist
sympathizer in a magazine. He really isn't now, although fifteen years
ago he attended Communist Party meetings for a short time.
What do you think will happen about his job — or work?
Would you say:

It will make no difference to his job.

He will probably keep his job

He will probably lose his job

Suppose he had known two months in advance that his name would
appear, what could he have done to avoid his job being affected?

(Intensive neutral

probing)

ANSWERS: All Top level

Will keep job 13 5

Will lose job 31 10

50:50 chance; it varies 14 3

D.K., N.A. 6 2

64 20

*15. Suppose a friend of yours was in that situation, would he be likely to
come to you for advice?

Yes Why? No Why not?

Maybe Can you tell me about that?

ANSWERS: All Top level

Yes 28 14

No 13 2

Maybe 19 4

D.K., N.A. 4 0

64" 20~

269

16. Do you think blacklisting is practiced in TV and Radio now?

(If respondent asks for a definition of blacklist, say: "That's what we'd
like to know. — How would you define it?")

Yes No

ANSWERS: All Top level

Yes 44 16

No 82

D.K., N.A. 12 2

64" 20"

17. How do you feel about blacklisting? In general, do you think it does
more harm or more good?

More harm More good Why do you feel that?

Don't know

ANSWERS: All Top level

More harm 49 18

More good 3 0

D.K., N.A. 12 2

64~ 20~

*18. Can you tell me about any list or lists that you know of?

*20. Who puts out (this list) (these lists)?

ANSWERS (combined): All Top level

Names:

Red Channels 41 16

Aware 16 4
Mr. Johnson; a grocer from Syracuse,

or other description of Mr. J. 21 10

Special government committees 4 1

File 13; Hartnett 4 1

American Legion, Catholic War Veterans 5 2

Counterattack; Kirkpatrick 11 4

Others 9 5

No names mentioned 12 2

D.K., N.A. 24 0

Institutional identification:

Ad agencies 25 13

Sponsors 10 4

Networks 13 7

Private organizations, outsiders, "mystery" 9 4

No institution mentioned, D.K., N.A. 27 3

270

19. What are some of the things a person might have done which could

result in his being blacklisted?
ANSWERS:

Suspected of being a Communist or fellow traveller
Suspected of having been a Communist or fellow traveller
Accidental or personal association with somebody or

something now suspect

Current political views and activities, non-Communist
Union activities, past or present
Immorality, alcoholism, homosexuality
Others
D.K., N.A.

*21. Does a person know whether or not he is on a list?
Usually Sometimes How

Never

ANSWERS :
Usually
Sometimes
Never
It varies
D.K., N.A.

All

8
11

6
12
10

Top level
6
0

5
4
1
5

does he know?

All
14
28

17
64"

Top level
5

10
1
0
4
20"

22. Is a person ever told he is not hired because he is on a list?

Usually Sometimes Never

Who tells him?
ANSWERS:
Usually
Sometimes
Never
D.K., N.A.

All
5

22
13
24
64"

Top level
3
8
5
4
20"

*23. If someone is listed, is it possible to get some jobs hi the industry and
not others, or is the listed person totally unemployable within the
industry?

Can get any jobs some jobs no jobs

ANSWERS: All Top level

Any job 1 0

Some job 35 15

No job 4 1

It varies 2 1

O.K., N.A. 22 3

271

*24. How many people in TV and Radio together do you think are handi-
capped in getting jobs because they are blacklisted?
Number or Percent Don't know.

ANSWERS:

All Top level

100 or less

2 0

101 - 500

5 3

501 or more

4 1

Very small % or number

10 4

10% or more

2 1

D.K., N.A.

41 11

64" 20"

How many persons do you think should be out of TV

and Radio?

Number nr Perr.ent Hnn't knnw

ANSWERS:

All Top level

Nobody

21 7

Facetious answer: (90%; "the business people," etc.)

5 2

Communists and fellow travellers

5 2

Fewer than there are

1 0

Other

1 0

D.K., N.A.

31 9

64" 20"

*25. If a person is blacklisted is there any way he can get

off the list?

Yes r!an ynii tell me No Hnw is

that?

ahnut that9 Dnn't knnw

ANSWERS:

All Top level

Can get off list

40 15

Cannot get off list

4 2

D.K., N.A.

20 3

64" 20"

ASK OF "YES" RESPONDENTS:

Once off the list, is that permanent?

Yes No How It depends How do you mean?

do you explain thaP r)nn't knnw

ANSWERS:

All Top level

Permanent

10 2

Not permanent

15 8

D.K. re permanence

15 5

40" 15"

272

*26. Why the blacklist in the first place? What are the

reasons behind it?

ANSWERS:

All

Top level

Climate of opinion, Communist scare, hysteria

Actual Communist danger in country

Industry has too many left-wing elements

Industry sensitive to criticism

Fear, lack of courage; sponsor's concern

Mistaken notion that there are many Communists in industry

Vigilantes, misguided patriotism

D.K., N.A.

(Probe): Is there anyone who benefits? Yes

Who?

ANSWERS:

All

Top level

Nobody

Those not on list

Listers (money, power)

Public, Security

Other

D.K., N.A.

(Probe): Is professional jealousy involved?

VPS Can ymj tell mp about that? No

ANSWERS:

All

Top level

Jealousy involved

Jealousy not involved

D.K., N.A.

64"

(Probe): Are the listers sincere and patriotic?

ANSWERS:

All

Top level

Listers sincere, unqualified

Sincere but misguided, crazy

Some sincere, others not

Not sincere

Listers sick, pathological

D.K., N.A.

27. We're not interested in names, but do you know anyone who is or ever
was blacklisted?

(AsK SUB-QUESTIONS) No (Go TO QUESTION 28)

273

ANSWERS:
Yes

No
N.A.

What was his employer's attitude?
ANSWERS:

Employer kept him on

Wanted to keep him on but couldn't

Fired him without concern

Person was free-lance

Person was not working at all at the time

D.K., N.A.

All Top level

50 17

11 3

3 0

64 20

All Top level
7 2

8
6
19
1

50"

2
0
8
0
5
17

What attitude did his fellow- (artists) (writers) (etc.) take?

ANSWERS: All Top level

Helped him 7 3

Wanted to help him but couldn't 15 5

Didn't try to help him 4 0

Wanted to avoid him 2 0

D.K., N.A. 22 9

50" 17

Is what happened in this case typical, do you think?

Yes No What is special about it?

ANSWERS: All Top level

Typical 24 8

Not typical 6 2

D.K., N.A. 20 7

50" 17

28. What types of people are most likely to be blacklisted?

(If respondent answers "suspected Communists," ask: What makes them
suspect?)

(If respondent answers "liberals, left wingers," etc., ask: Why is that?)
ANSWERS: All Top level

Communists, fellow travellers, subversives

Radicals, left-wingers

Liberals, active liberals

Socially conscious, active people

Incautious, emotional people

People who performed on certain benefit shows

Outspoken people; dissenters; non-conformists

13
6

12
8
5
3

274

Anti-blacklisters 3 1

Minority group members 2 0

Anyone at all; anyone who gets in the way 4 1

People who joined organizations now on list 8 2

Other 14 2

D.K., N.A. 14 4

*29. Everyone has, of course, to make some adjustments to the temper of
the times. Are there any things a person in the industry should or
should not do in order to avoid being criticized on political grounds?

Yes What? (neutral probes}

No Can you comment on that?

ANSWERS: All Top level

No need for precautions 2 2

Some precautions 51 14

D.K., N.A. 11 4

64~ 20

IF RESPONDENT HAS ANSWERED IN TERMS OF INDUSTRY, ASK:
What about yourself? Are there any things you feel you should or
should not do in order to avoid being criticized on political grounds?
IF RESPONDENT HAS ANSWERED IN TERMS OF HIMSELF, ASK:
What about others in the industry? Are there any things people-in-
general in the industry should or should not do in order to avoid being
criticized on political grounds?

ANSWERS (for industry) : All Top level

No need for precautions 1 1

Some precautions 44 16

O.K., N.A. 19 3

64 20

(Probe): What about being friendly with certain types of people?

SELF INDUSTRY

ANSWERS: All Top level All Top level

Be careful 92 94

No need for care 17 5 20

D.K., N.A. 38 13 53 16

64 "20 "64 20

(Probe): What about discussing political matters around the studio?

SELF INDUSTRY

ANSWERS: All Top level All Top level

Do not discuss 30 5 25 4

Discuss freely 74 00

D.K., N.A. 27 11 39 16

64 20 "64 20

275

(Probe): What about joining organizations?

SELF INDUSTRY

ANSWERS: All Top level All Top level

Don't join 18 6 23 9

Join what you like 61 00

No interest in organizations 17 4 0 0

D.K., N.A. 23 9 41 11

64 "20 "64 "20

*30. Have you ever found yourself hesitating to buy a certain book or
magazine, or hesitating to leave it around where it can be seen, for
fear that it might be frowned upon?

Yes No Can you tell me about that?

ANSWERS: All Top level

Yes 11 5

No 43 12

D.K., N.A. 10 3

64" 20

*31. Do you think people in the industry ever hesitate to buy a certain
book or magazine or leave it around where it can be seen, for fear
that it might be frowned upon?

Yes No Can you tell me about that?

ANSWERS: All Top level

Yes 28 10

No 13 3

D.K., N.A. 23 7

64~ 20

*32. IF "TALENT" SKIP THIS QUESTION AND Go TO QUESTION 33

Is there any subject matter or treatment of subject matter that you feel
it would be wise to avoid so that your program cannot be criticized for
containing an unpopular political slant?

Yes No How do you decide this?

ANSWERS: All Top level

Yes 16 6

No 14 4

D.K., N.A. 11 2

33. In regard to blacklisting, would you say that the situation is getting
better or getting worse, or staying about the same?

Beter Worse About the same

What accounts for this?

276

ANSWERS:

Better

Worse

About the same

D.K., N.A.

All

Top level

_2
20

IF RESPONDENT ANSWERED Better OR Worse:

(Probe}: In your opinion, has there been any particular event that

accounts for this?

Yes When was that? Can you tell me about it?

ANSWERS: All Top level

Yes (McCarthy's decline, Matusow case,

Ed Murrow's stand)
No
D.K., N.A.

34. What parts of the industry (are for the blacklist) (would be for

blacklist)?
ANSWERS:

Networks, employers, management
Ad agencies
Packagers
Sponsors
Union

Creative people
Nobody

Individuals (no group)
Right wing politicians
D.K., N.A.

What parts of the industry are against the blacklist?
ANSWERS:

Networks, employers, management
Ad agencies
Packagers
Sponsors
Union
Everybody
Nobody
Individuals

Left wing politicians
Creative people
Blacklisted people
D.K., N.A.

voulc

I be for s

All

Top level

All

Top level

277

*35. Is there or was there at one time a blacklist against conservatives and
anti-Communists?

Yes Can you tell me about that? No

ANSWERS: All Top level

Yes 5 1

Yes, but less official than current list 13 5

No 29 10

D.K., N.A. 17 4

64 "20

36. Just to give me some perspective, how important do you feel blacklisting

is in relation to other problems in the industry?

(Probe): And why is that?

ANSWERS: All Top level

Very important 18 9

Minor importance 25 7

No importance 6 3

D.K., N.A. 15 1

64 "20

How do you think most people in the industry feel about this?

*37. Now just a few questions about yourself.

Are you married? Married Single

Have you ever been married? Yes No

Do you have children? Yes — 35 No — 29

May I ask their ages?

ANSWERS:

Married -52 Single - 9 N.A., D.K. - 3

And where were you born? 59 in U.S.A.; 5 abroad.

What is the name of the last school you attended?

ANSWERS:

At least some college — 45 Less than college — 14 N.A. — 5

Is (Radio) (TV) the main source of family income?
Yes - 52 No - 8 N.A. - 4

For what network do you do most of your work?
ANSWERS:
ABC -10 CBS -25 NBC -23 Others - 2 Several - 4

Would you mind telling me what newspaper you read most often?

How often is that?

ANSWERS:

56 at least 4 times a week a daily paper.
4 less than 4 times a week a daily paper.
4 N.A.

278

And, finally, did you vote in the last presidential election?

ANSWERS:

Yes - 46 No - 13 N.A. - 5

TO BE FILLED IN BY INTERVIEWER AFTER THE INTERVIEW

Approximate age of respondent Sex

Men - 50 Women - 14

Age: -30 7 46 + 13

31-45 41 N.A 4

Brief description of respondent, including mannerisms, willingness to answer
questions, interviewer's estimate of degree of honesty and/or realism in
answering questions, and any other material which will help us recreate the
interview situation: such as a few words on the respondent's office or living
conditions. State where interview took place.

Spoke more or less freely 52 Showed open concern

Did not speak freely 10 for anonymity 12

N.A. 2

What questions were the most difficult to handle? Why?

None 32 Q. 28 3

Blacklisting questions 10 Q.'s 4, 5, 11, 13, 14,

All 3 30, 36 (each) 1

Q. 8 3 Not ascertained 7

Q. 26 3

Date of interview

Time: From to

(A.M./P.M.) (A.M./P.M.)

Travel time

Editing time

Other time

(explain)

Total time :

Interviewer

Interview No

279

APPENDIX B

Letter of Introduction to Talent

This is to introduce.

who is assisting me in a study of Television and Radio.

The purpose of this study is to obtain a picture of policies and practices
in the entertainment industry, as they are actually experienced by those who
work in it. The only way to obtain this picture is to interview persons like
yourself who are in the midst of it. Altogether we plan to interview about
100 persons.

You may wish to know how we selected you as a participant in the study.
In scientific work of this kind it is very important to select people for
interviewing without introducing any bias in the choice, such as we might
have done had we approached people in TV and radio through personal
contacts. This is why we went to a lot of trouble in establishing as complete
a list as possible of persons working in TV or radio in New York City.
From this list we then picked names at random. Yours happens to be
included. I am very glad to know that you expressed your willingness to
be interviewed.

I want to add another point: Persons in your profession are, as I know,
rightly much concerned with publicity. Scientific studies of this kind are
possible only if the individuals who cooperate with it remain completely
anonymous in any publication of our results. I am sure you will agree that
this is a wise principle, if you consider that you or others may wish to speak
your mind frankly without having to consider consequences. I hope you
will accept my word of honor, if I assure you that I personally guarantee
that what you care to say in the interview will remain completely anonymous.

If there is anything else about the study that you may wish to know,
please call me on the 'phone or write to me. I shall be happy to answer all
your questions.

I think you will enjoy the interview. Thank you very much for your
cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

MARIE JAHODA
Professor of Psychology
MJ:dh

280

APPENDIX C

Letter to Top Executives of Networks, Advertising Agencies
and Packaging Firms

Dear

During the past several months I have been conducting a study of the
attitudes and opinions of persons about their work in radio and TV, the
satisfactions and frustrations they experience, and the more general problems
which they feel confront the industry. A good portion of the personal
interviews which my staff conducted with talent, writers, producers and
directors concerned the question of blacklisting. A preliminary exploration
of the field had convinced me that this issue had to be appraised in
conjunction with other aspects of the industry. We have deliberately not
talked to persons who believe they themselves have been blacklisted.

The analysis of the interviews yielded a most fascinating picture. How-
ever, I am convinced that this picture is incomplete without the comments
of the leaders and policy makers in the field. This is why I am asking for
the privilege of an interview with you. I want to discuss with you our
findings to date and obtain your comments before submitting a final report
to the public.

You may wish to know that the study is being financed by The Fund
for the Republic, as a self-contained section of their larger study of the
entertainment industry. Let me add that I am talking with top executives
in a number of different organizations related to the entertainment industry
or in the industry itself.

I believe you will find our research of interest and I look forward to
discussing it with you. My secretary will check with your office within the
next few days regarding a convenient time.

Sincerely yours,

MARIE JAHODA
Professor of Psychology
MJ:dh

281

Index

Actors Equity Association, 84, 94,

143, 145, 158-161, 178, 211, 213,

215-216

Actors' Laboratory, 189
Adler, Larry, 30, 59
Agronsky, Martin, 87
Alliance, The, 131
Aluminum Company of America,

102
American Association of Advertising

Agencies, 260
American Broadcasting Co. (ABC),

24 fn., 34, 45, 72-73, 78, 82, 85-

88, 278
American Business Consultants,

l,3fn., 50-51
American Civil Liberties Union,

4, 10,42-43,88, 117, 121,227
American Federation of Radio

Artists (AFRA), 148
American Federation of Radio &

Television Artists (AFTRA), 95-

98, 129-132, 137, 143-144, 148,

151, 154-158, 162, 259
American Legion, 10, 23, 27, 37, 49,

54-55, 58-62, 67, 90, 92, 104, 106-

107, 110-113, 126, 128, 147, 169,

174, 183, 186, 187, 213, 214, 227,

240, 270
American Legion Magazine, 28, 93,

113
American Mercury, 28, 85, 89, 93,

120

Americans for Democratic Action,

88, 250
American Tobacco Co., 100-101,

194-195

Amoury, Robert, 131
Anti-Defamation League, 117, 121,

129

"Appendix Nine", 21, 59-61
Armstrong Cork Co., 193
Arthur, Jean, 213
Artists' Front to Win the War, 146,

175
Associated Actors & Artistes of

America, 13
Associated Press, 159
Association of National Advertisers,

260
Association of Radio News Analysts,

75
Attorney General's List, 117, 123,

132, 219-220
Authors League of America, 39,

68-69, 148
AWARE, Inc., 18-19, 28, 44-46, 88,

95, 98, 108, 120-121, 126, 128,

129-142, 146-147, 149, 150, 154-

158, 162, 209, 217, 227, 240, 270

Backstrand, C. J., 193

Ball, Lucille, 125

Barrett, Leslie, 95-96

Barry, Enright & Friendly, Inc., 199

Barry, Jack, 199

282

Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborn
(BBD & O), 23, 60, 62, 90, 115-
116, 118, 120, 124, 175

Belafonte, Harry, 8-9

Bellak, George, 215

Berg, Gertrude, 35-37

Berkeley, Martin, 124

Berry, Alfred, 63, 122-126, 186-187

Bierly, Ken, 3 fn.

Biow Co., 25, 28

Block Drug Co., 54, 66

Block, Leonard A., 54

Borden Co., 56, 105

Brewer, Roy, 61,95

Bromberg, J. Edward, 187

Brooklyn Eagle, 126

Brooklyn Tablet, 85, 89, 147

Brown, Cecil, 75

Brown, Henry C., 196-199

Brown, Henry C., Agency, 196-199

Brownstein, Rebecca, 211

Buchanan, Eleanor, 104-106

Buchwald, Nathaniel, 215

Burdett, Winston, 80 fn., 126-127

Burnett, Leo, Co., 203

Burnett, Nicky, 26

California Un-American Activities

Committee, 1
Carney, Robert F., 199
Carnovsky, Morris, 47, 215
Carroll, Nancy, 30
Carter, Boake, 74
Cary, F. Strother, Jr., 203
Catholic War Veterans, 10, 13, 23,

59, 95, 270

Celanese Corp. of America, 38, 41
Chaplin, Charles, 214
Christians, Mady, 39, 41, 46
damage, Edward, 24 fn., 37
Close, Upton, 77
Coca-Cola Co., 195
Columbia Artists Management, 205

Columbia Broadcasting System, 4,
13-14, 17, 23-24, 35-37, 46, 62,
68-69, 71-73, 75-82, 84-86, 90-91,
105, 118, 122-128, 165, 168, 171,
184, 186-187, 189, 192-193, 278

Committee for the First Amendment,
11

Communist Party, 6-7, 10-12, 17, 23-
24, 124, 132-133, 139-140, 144-
146, 158-159, 193, 200, 202, 206,
220, 224, 269

Conran, Kay, 203-204

Coughlin, Rev. Charles E. 74

Counterattack, 1-17, 20, 23, 25-26,
30, 32-33, 40-41, 45, 49, 54, 58,
83-84, 89, 92, 104, 106-107, 110,
119-120, 128, 161, 169, 176-177,
187, 196, 200, 205, 208-209, 218,
227, 240, 270

Crosby, John, 28, 31-32

Daily Worker, The, 32-33, 111, 165,

186, 206

D'Arcy Advertising Co., 195
Dare, Danny, 124
Daughters of the American

Revolution, 10
Davis, Elmer, 72, 87-88
Dekker, Albert, 214
De Koven, Roger, 16
De Lorenzo, Anthony, 194
Dies Committee, 160
Doan,Leland I., 193-194
Dow Chemical Co., 193-194
Dowling, Eddie, 146
Dozier, William, 63
Draper, Paul, 30, 59
Dungey, John, 107
Durr, Clifford J., 79

Eastland, James O., 126-127, 143
Edwards, Douglas, 80
Ellington & Co., 38, 41-42

283

Ellington, Jesse T., 38-39
Ellis, Michael, 214
Erickson, Leif , 116

Facts About Blacklist, 56

Facts Forum, 88

Fagan, Myron, 190

Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), 14, 89-90, 111, 122, 128,
135, 145, 171, 223, 241, 245, 246,
248, 261

Federal Communications Commis-
sion (FCC), 39-40, 73-74, 79

Fidler, Jimmy, 27

File 13, 23, 93, 110, 121, 170,270

Firing Line, 49, 89, 106, 110-112,
120, 169, 187, 196, 200, 218, 227

Follett, Mary Parker, 206

Foote, Cone & fielding, 199

Fortune, 122, 206-208

Francis, Clarence, 25, 35

Fritschel, E. G., 195

Gaeth, Arthur, 80, 82

Gailmor, William S., 80, 82

Galantiere, Lewis, 208

Gallup, George, 30-31

Gang, Martin, 117, 121

Geer, Will, 215

General Foods Corp., 22-25, 28-31,

34-37, 206-209

General Ice Cream Corp., 102
General Mills, Inc., 173
General Motors Corp., 194
Gersch, Harry, 152-154
Gilford, Jack, 214-215
Goetz, Ruth, 39
Gould, Jack, 92-93, 130
Grant, Lee, 47
Gross, Ben, 33

Hagen,Uta,213

Hahn, Paul M., 100-101, 194-195

Hall, Arthur P., 102

Hall, George, 145

Hallmark Cards, Inc., 204-205

Harburg,Yip, 211

Harkness, Richard, 79

Hartnett, Vincent, 18-20, 23, 25-26,

28, 92-99, 106, 110, 121, 130, 191,

209, 270

Hayes Registry, 229 fn.
Hays, Arthur Garfield, 50
Hayworth, Vinton, 45-46
Heatter, Gabriel, 79
Heller, George, 37
Hersey, John, 39-40
Hidden, Francis, 210
Hobson, Laura, 39
Holmgren, Roderick B., 80, 82-83
Hoover, J. Edgar, 10, 133, 261
Hottelet, Richard, 80
House Committee on Un-American

Activities, 1, 11, 14, 21, 60, 67,

111, 124, 125 fn., 130, 132, 135,

145, 156, 174-175,211
Howe, Quincy, 127
Hunt, Marsha, 46
Huntley, Chet, 88
Hurok Attractions, Inc., 205-206

Independent Citizens Committee of
the Arts, Sciences & Professions,
190

International Organizations Employ-
ees Loyalty Board, 150

Jacoby, Lois, 47

Jaffe, Sam, 212

John Quincy Adams Associates, 3 fn.

Johnson, Laurence A., 54, 56, 63,
92, 100-109, 171, 176-177, 180,
214, 215, 240, 254-255, 270

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee
Committee, 8

284

Joint Committee Against Commu-
nism in New York, 30

Judges and the Judges, The, 30-31,
42

Julian, Joe, 50-51

Kaltenborn, H. V., 71

Kazan, Elia, 180

Keenan, John, 3 fn.

Kelley, Welbourn, 147, 149-151

Kellogg Co., 31

Kendrick, Alexander, 80, 81-82

Kennedy, John, 210, 216

Kenyon, Dorothy, 88

Kintner, Robert E., 24 fn.

Kirkpatrick, Theodore, 3 fn., 14, 17,

30, 32, 84, 270
Klauber, Edward, 7 1-72
Knight, Ruth Adams, 43-44, 47,

147-148
Kraft Foods Co., 66-67, 102, 105

Lambertson, Representative, 160
League of N. Y. Theatres, 158, 161,

210,213,215-216
Lee, Gypsy Rose, 24
Lennen & Mitchell, 117
Lennen & Newell, 1 17
Lever Bros., 194
Lewis, Fulton, Jr., 72, 79, 127
Liberty Broadcasting System, 80, 84
Little Lady Toiletries, 34
Loeb, Philip, 25, 35-38, 67, 115, 161
Lord, Phillips H., Inc., 24-26, 28
Lyon, Peter, 47
Lytell, Bert, 159-160

Mack, Walter, 25
Mann, Thomas, 16
Manson, Alan, 47
Marinello, Juan, 16
Martin, Charles E., 50-52
Marx, Karl, 248-249

Masses & Mainstream, 215

Matthews, J. B., 110, 113

Matusow, Harvey, 63, 106-107, 117-

118,277

Me Cann-Erickson, 115, 192
Me Carran, Senator, 57, 131, 143,

146, 149, 151, 188
Me Cullough, Hester, 30, 59, 209
Me Gee, Willie, 165, 186, 187
Me Queen, Butterfly, 47
Metropolitan Opera, 214
Miller, Arthur, 12-13, 211-212
Miller, Merle, 30-31, 42-43, 45
Milton, Paul, 44, 146-147, 152-154
Miner, Worthington, 47
Morgan, Edward P., 86
Morgan, Henry, 116
Motion Picture Alliance for the Pres-
ervation of American Ideals, 61,

190
Muir, Jean, 22-23, 24, 29-31, 33, 34,

42, 67, 115, 161, 206-209, 218
Murrow, Edward R., 71, 79, 80, 82,

84-85, 102, 127, 277
Mutual Broadcasting System, 72-74,

76-80, 83, 85
Nagel, Conrad, 46
Nation, The, 249
National Broadcasting Co., 4, 23, 34,

37, 46, 71-73, 78-80, 85, 86, 105,

122-123, 129, 133, 174, 183, 189,

209, 278

National Lawyers Guild, 11
Neuser, Francis W., 106
New Leader, The, 152-153
New York Herald Tribune, 17, 28
New York Journal American, 37, 59,

157

New York Post, 77, 249
New York Times, The, 17, 18, 92-93,

122,130,151,180,209
New York World-Telegram, 90, 159

285

Oakson, John L, 204-205
O'Brian, Jack, 37
O'Neil, James F., 110, 112-114
Oppenheimer, J. Robert, 127
Osato, Sono, 215
O'Shea, Daniel, 63, 68, 122,
124-128, 187

Paley, William S., 14,71-72, 122-123
Parker, Dorothy, 78, 211, 212
Peabody, Stuart, 56
Pearson, Drew, 14, 87
Pennington, Lee, 110-112, 113
Pepsi-Cola Co., 25, 28
Peterson, Val, 15 fn.
Pitzele, Merlyn S., 42, 44
Players' Guide, 229 fn.
Polan, Lou, 47
Procter & Gamble Co., 192
Prude, Walter, 205-206

Racht, Leon, 157

Radio & Television Directors Guild,
(RTDG), 13, 26

Radio Annual-TV Yearbook, 229 fn.

Radio Artists Telephone Exchange,
229 fn.

Radio Registry, 229 fn.

Radio Station WMCA, 83

Radio Station WMGM, 83

Radio Writers Guild, 13, 25, 43-44,
47, 94, 143-144, 146-154, 162

Randolph, John, 47

Ream, Joseph H., 68-69, 123-124

Red Channels, 1-2, 7, 13-21, 23-31,
33-34, 36, 39, 44, 46-47, 49-54,
57-61, 71 fn., 80-85, 89, 93, 95,
104, 107, 110, 116, 118, 123, 133,
161, 170-171, 173, 175, 177, 179,
183, 187 fn., 188, 196, 200, 205,
212-214, 218, 227, 240, 270

Reilly, James, 210-211

Rice, Elmer, 22, 38-42

286

Riesel, Victor, 63, 90

RKO Radio Pictures, 124

Road Back, The, 134-37

Robeson, Paul, 8-9, 119, 166, 169,

196, 214, 252
Robinson, Earl, 215
Roche, M. J., 194
Rome, Harold, 212
Ross Reports, 45-46, 229 fn.
Royle, Selena, 45-46

St. John, Robert, 78, 80

Salt, Waldo, 215

Saypol, Irving, 50-51

Schang, F. C., 205

Schlitz Brewing Co., 192

Schmidt, Godfrey P., 28, 88, 129-
130, 132-134, 137-142

Schultz, Rabbi Benjamin, 30

Schultz, Robert, 204

Schultz, Robert, Associates, 204

Scott, Hazel, 20-21, 24

Scott, L. W., 193

Seldes, Gilbert, 74-75, 76, 77

Selznick International Pictures, 124

Senate Internal Security Subcommit-
tee, 25, 43-44, 57, 94, 126, 136,
143, 146, 149, 151, 188-189

Sergio, Lisa, 80, 82

Sevareid, Eric, 79, 86-87

Shirer, William L., 71, 77-81

Sign, The, 26, 28, 93

Sloane, Allan E., 124, 145

Smith, Gerald L. K., 196

Smith, Howard K., 80-81

Socolow, Walter, 38

Sokolsky, George, 60-62, 63, 72, 90,
112, 113-114, 128, 137, 187

Sorenson, Max H., 13

Sorrell, Herbert, 190

Spivak, Lawrence, 86

Spotlight, 102, 106, 108

Stanton, Frank, 35-36

Steel, Johannes, 78, 80, 83

Stewart, D. W., 193

Subversive Activities Control Board,

132, 136, 219-220
Sullivan, Ed, 14-15, 50, 59
Sullivan, Elliott, 47
Swayze, John Cameron, 79
Sweets, William, 22, 24-29, 42
Swing, Raymond, 78, 84
Sydney, Sylvia, 214

Television Authority (TVA), 37, 47

Texas Co., 193

Thomas, J. Parnell, 11, 14, 190

Thomas, Lowell, 79

Thompson, Dorothy, 76-77

Thompson, J. Walter, Co., 53, 115

Todd, Betty, 13

Tomkins, William R, 219-220

Tunick, Irve, 47

Unesco, 88

Vandercook, John W., 72, 75, 78-79

Vanguard Films, 124

Variety, 27, 173, 174, 190, 227

Velde, Rep. Harold, 60-61

Veterans Action Committee of Syra-
cuse Super Markets, 54-56, 63, 66,
106, 209

Veterans of Foreign Wars, 59
Voice of America, 86-87
Voice of Freedom Committee, 24,
26-27, 78-80

Waldorf Conference, 216
Waldorf Peace Conference, 16, 185
Walsh, J. Raymond, 80, 83-84
Walter, Francis E., 211
Waring, Dorothy, 195-196
Waring Enterprises, 195-196
Watkins, Arthur V., 43-44, 143
Weavers, The, 107
Webster, Margaret, 212
Westinghouse Electric Corp., 193
We The Undersigned, 44, 47,

152-154

White, Paul, 72, 75-76, 85
Wicker, Ireene, 22, 24, 31-34, 42, 67
Winchell, Walter, 15, 74-75
Wishengrad, Morton, 42, 44,

148-149

Woltman, Frederick, 90, 116
Wood, John S., 14
Wren, Jack, 60-62, 90-91, 115-121,

122, 125
Writers Guild of America, 154

Young & Rubicam, 24-25, 28, 29, 35,
115,207

287

N SEPTEMBER, 1954, the Board of Directors of The
Fund for the Republic authorized a study of blacklisting
in the motion picture and radio-TV industries. John
Cogley, then executive editor of The Commonweal, was
appointed director of the project. He was asked by the
Fund to prepare a full factual report on the situation.

Beginning in January, 1955, a staff of ten reporters
and researchers collected facts in Hollywood and New
York. They spent the next eight months interviewing
persons on both Coasts who had first-hand knowledge of
the situation. In all, almost five hundred persons were
interviewed. Special care was given to such questions as:

Does blacklisting exist? How did it develop? Who
are, or have been, blacklisted? Is "clearance" possible?
How does "clearance" operate? Who are the key figures
in "clearance" operations? What has been the role of
the theatrical unions? What is, or has been, the position
of the motion-picture industry on this question? The
radio-television industry? The leading advertising agen-
cies? The chief sponsors? Do those who have been
blacklisted have recourse in the law? Did the "Holly-
wood Ten" and the group of self-confessed ex-Com-
munists in Hollywood succeed in using the films to
propagate the Communist Party line? What do rank-
and-file members of the radio-television industry think
of blacklisting and what effect has it had on morale in
the industry?

These and many other questions are answered in
this two-volume "REPORT ON BLACKLISTING."

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Report on blacklisting: II. Radio-television"

See other formats