Get ebook downloads in full at ebookname.

com

The Language of Journalism Volume Two Profanity

Obscenity and the Media 1st Edition Melvin J.
Lasky

https://ebookname.com/product/the-language-of-journalism-
volume-two-profanity-obscenity-and-the-media-1st-edition-
melvin-j-lasky/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

Explore and download more ebook at https://ebookname.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Two Component Signaling Systems Part C 1st Edition

Melvin I. Simon

https://ebookname.com/product/two-component-signaling-systems-
part-c-1st-edition-melvin-i-simon/

Two Component Signaling Systems Part A 1st Edition

Melvin I. Simon

https://ebookname.com/product/two-component-signaling-systems-
part-a-1st-edition-melvin-i-simon/

The Media in the Movies A Catalog of American

Journalism Films 1900 1996 1st Edition Larry Langman

https://ebookname.com/product/the-media-in-the-movies-a-catalog-
of-american-journalism-films-1900-1996-1st-edition-larry-langman/

Obituaries In The Performing Arts 2005 Film Television

Radio Theatre Dance Music Cartoons and Pop Culture
Obituaries in the Performing Arts Harris M. Lentz

https://ebookname.com/product/obituaries-in-the-performing-
arts-2005-film-television-radio-theatre-dance-music-cartoons-and-
pop-culture-obituaries-in-the-performing-arts-harris-m-lentz/
Shakesqueer A Queer Companion to the Complete Works of
Shakespeare 1st Edition Madhavi Menon

https://ebookname.com/product/shakesqueer-a-queer-companion-to-
the-complete-works-of-shakespeare-1st-edition-madhavi-menon/

Halloween From Pagan Ritual to Party Night First

Edition Nicholas Rogers

https://ebookname.com/product/halloween-from-pagan-ritual-to-
party-night-first-edition-nicholas-rogers/

Nutrients for Sugar Beet Production Soil Plant

Relationships Cabi Publishing First Edition A. Philip
Draycott

https://ebookname.com/product/nutrients-for-sugar-beet-
production-soil-plant-relationships-cabi-publishing-first-
edition-a-philip-draycott/

Healthy Cooking for Secondary Schools Book 4 Book 4 1st

Edition Sandra Mulvany

https://ebookname.com/product/healthy-cooking-for-secondary-
schools-book-4-book-4-1st-edition-sandra-mulvany/

Notorious H I V The Media Spectacle of Nushawn Williams

1st Edition Thomas C. Shevory

https://ebookname.com/product/notorious-h-i-v-the-media-
spectacle-of-nushawn-williams-1st-edition-thomas-c-shevory/
Ending the War Metaphor The Changing Agenda for
Unraveling the Host Microbe Relationship Workshop
Summary 1st Edition Forum On Microbial Threats

https://ebookname.com/product/ending-the-war-metaphor-the-
changing-agenda-for-unraveling-the-host-microbe-relationship-
workshop-summary-1st-edition-forum-on-microbial-threats/
Profanity,
Obscenity
EMedia
 MelvinJ. Lasky
Profanity,
Obscenity
EMedia
The Language ofJournalism,Volume 2
Being A Second Volume,
Wherein the Language of Journalism is Examined,
Its Splendors and Miseries—
including Cliches and Trivia,
Sensationalism and Prurience,
Wit and Witlessness,
Fiction and Faction,
Pseudery and Jabberwooky,
Scoops and Hoaxes,
Racism and Sexism,
Profanity and Obscenity,
Virtue and Reality,
Culture and Anarchy—
and the Abuse of Slang, Style,
and the Habits of Writing Good Prose
First published 2005 by Transaction Publishers

Published 2017 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright © 2005 by Taylor & Francis.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or

utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and
are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Catalog Number: 00-034408

The Library of Congress has cataloged Volume 1 as follows:

Lasky, Melvin J.
The language of journalism / Melvin J. Lasky
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Contents: v. 1. Newspaper culture.
ISBN 0-7658-0001-2 (v. 1. : alk. paper)
1. Newspapers—Language. 2. Journalism—Language. I. Title.

PN4783.L37 2000
070.4'01'4—dc2 00-034408

ISBN 13: 978-0-7658-0220-0 (hbk)

 “Take Care When You Get information. We
Live By information, Which Exists By Faith in
Others.But If the Ear is the Side-Door of Truth
It is the Front-Door of Lies....the Truth Seldom
Comes in Elemental Purity, Especially From
Afar – there is Always Some Admixture of
Moods of Those Through Whom It Has Passed.
Passions Tinge and Color Whatever they touch,
Sometimes Favorably, Sometimes Odiously....
Pay attention to intentions....Let Reflection Test
for Falsity and Exaggeration.”

—Balthasar Gracián, the Art of

Worldly Wisdom
Oraculo Manual Y Arte De Prudencia (1647)
 Table of Contents
Introduction ix

Part 1: Towards a Theory of Journalistic Malpractice

1. From A. N. Whitehead to Irving Kristol 3
Illusions and Self-Deception 3
Hard Facts and Soft Future 5
Adversarial Culture 8
“Sensations”: From Silent Images to Talking Pictures 10
Art News and New Art 18
Of Nihilism and Mendacity 24
2. The Little Lie and the Big Story 31
Hitler’s Hoax 31
The Counterfeiter’s Fiction 34
Mysteries of the Piltdown Forgery 37
3. Difficulties in Grappling with Reality 43
The Reporter Rearranges the Scene 43
Janet Cooke and the Color of Truth 54
The Duping of Hersh’s “Camelot” 58
Martin Walser’s “Catechism of Correctness” 66
4. The New Shamanism 73

Part 2: Sex and Other Ongoing Titillations

5. The Ennui of Obscenity 79
Between Sexual Virility and Erotic Fatigue 79
Low Notes in High C 83
A-Word to S-Word, and their Synonyms 85
Of Ideology and Scatology 99
The Snafu Known as Swag 106
Filling Out the Missing Details 114
Private Parts, Public Lives 115
Alphabet Soup 117
Mr. Bloomberg’s “$!*@&” 119
6. “O Propheta” 125
The Last Refuge 125
Porno Ploys and Crackable Codes 131
A*c*c*o*m*p*l*i*c*e*s, or: 132
Participatory Obscenity
Steiner and Burgess On “Love” 138
7. Chaucer and a Choice of Taboo Words 141
8. Strong Odors, Blurred Pictures 145
9. Obsessions with the S-Word 157
10. The Case of the Missing F**r-L****r Word 161
11. Asterisks: From Byron to Madonna 165
12. Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad F-Word? 177
13. Tiger, the Times, and a Dreaded Black Asterisk 183
14. Morphing the A-Word 197
15. Terms of Agreement and Endearment 201
16. The Mergenthaler Option 205
17. A Matter of Illegitimacy 209
18. The Guard that Failed 213
19. The Desperate Search for “the Good Bits” 223
Sporting Language 225
Tom Jones and the Language Police 232
20. Swearing is the Curse 239

Part 3: Literary Origins and Popular Consequences

21. Sources of Malpractice 249
22. From Wordsworth to Orwell and Hemingway 251
23. The Prose We Write and Speak 255
24. Dealing with the Grandmother Tongue 265
The Continuing Domestication of Yiddishisms 265
Leo Rosten’s Gallimaufry 273
25. Quotations that were Unquoted 281
26. Dirty Realism in the White House and Beyond 285
27. Towards a Vocabulary of Pop Diplomacy 297

Notes 311
Index 331
 Introduction
Now that my second volume has been completed and set for publication,
that infallibly mathematical half-way mark has surely been reached. At least
for trilogies. And Kafka in his inscrutable way recommended it as the fateful
point of no return. Now there is no turning back, but the reader–or the browser
in a bookshop with this book momentarily in his hand–need not be alarmed.
The momentum which was unleashed a thousand pages ago by the trau-
matic impulse of my father’s disillusionment with the New York Times
(fifty years or so ago) will now be carrying me and the argument to the
very bitter end; and the author can give the reader an important reassur-
ance: He need not have read the first volume of The Language of Journal-
ism (2000) to be profitably provoked–and possibly persuaded–by the
sequel he, or she, has in his or her hand. A neighborhood wit once coined, in
the days when we went to the movies in the afternoon (mostly Saturdays) and
the double-features were being shown in “continuous performance,” the im-
mortal recommendation for us, the “early-bird” matinée crowd, to the effect
that “This is a film that begins in the middle…for the people who came in in the
middle!” This is such a book.
I admit that with the years since the first volume appeared I have tried to
develop and vary the analysis, and indeed to extend the research; and still I
feel that coming closer to the end was like approaching the beginning. I was
tempted–but an editor’s blue pencil overruled me–to add yet another reveal-
ing motto somewhere around the thousandth page. This would, with Aris-
totelian authority (no less), associate everything I was saying with large
Athenian ambitions and classical wisdom. The ancient credo was full of
promises: “We will then show how the absurdities of speech are born from
the misunderstandings of similar words for different things and different
words for similar things, from garrulity and repetition, from play on words,
from diminutives, from errors of pronunciation, and from barbarisms”
(Aristotle, Poetics, c. 350 B.C.). I still have, as is obvious, wangled its interpo-
lation here, for prefaces are also promises. But there are also obvious lessons to
be learned from such belated commitments. A famous warning from one self-
critical master came up with the aptest of cautions: …What one learns last in
writing a book is what should have come first. Or, come to think about it, how
to begin in the middle.

ix
x The Language of Journalism

In my own case what might have come first, or at least very much earlier, is
an unforgivably tardy awareness of how it all began, and where and why. I
have often on the previous pages made reference, in personal bursts of “re-
membrance,” to early reading habits (to the Times and the Bronx Home News)…to
family traditions of literacy (my grandfather’s pious addiction to his favorite
local daily, my father’s blue-eyed faith in his)…to my university years wherein
a small group of New York students, alternately poring over cryptic medieval
documents and stop-press stories in our daily newspapers, learned to detect
hidden meanings (or so we thought) buried deep beneath the superficial “vis-
ible surface” of reported events. My old City College classmate Irving Kristol
reminded me the other day in Washington that the collegiate review I edited
from our shared Alcove 2–a mag called History Chronicle (to which he was a
contributor)–looked, sounded, and read like all the subsequent journals I had
anything to do with. (It also featured, in its large double-column pages way-
ward quotes, stray clips, odd footnotes, and other eclectic tidbits, printed
alternately in italics and boldface, and framed by a thin-lined box.) So much
for growing up, coming-of-age, and the delusions of progress and change.
Do all attempts to remember the past turn up, in agreeably familiar patterns
of discovery, similarities if not identities? Is it inevitable that what we recall is
shaped by such apt episodes of selective relevance? My first semi-profes-
sional experience as a teenage editor of a literary magazine entitled the Mag-
pie only strengthened our youthful foraging instincts, to steal away with a few
shining bits of truth. The world was turning out to be a hard place to under-
stand; and whether in the library or at the newspaper-stand, we were driven
each day to come away with an item or two, underlined with apparent percep-
tiveness or, even better: stabbing insights.
Looking back in the perspective of half-a-century, I think I can detect the
line that took me from there to here. Novels, of course, were the stepping-
stones. I remember the “newsreel” insertions which adorned John Dos Passos’
Manhattan Transfer (and the other volumes in his USA trilogy), replete with
artfully selected news-items.1 I hesitate to mention Marcel Proust, but then the
madeleine experience, now so platitudinous, seemed to be happening for the
first time, at least for young readers. We would have to remember the actions
and the passions of our own generation; and we were, whether we knew it or
not, stocking up on little stimuli which would be on hand when memories
needed to be fully recalled. An old cutting takes on new life, and becomes the
illuminating context for (in Burton’s seventeenth-century phrase) “new news.”
To be sure, professional journalists in our time all had at their command their
own newspaper’s so-called morgue: presumably the place where the old dead
stories could be summoned up to serve as still lively factual background. This
might add a spot of color and coherence to a fast-breaking story. But where was
truth? or where was art? Could newspaper culture embrace the highest values
(what, with collections of yellowing clippings)?
 Introduction xi

I remember my first meeting with an accomplished artist–with George Grosz,

a famed German painter who was forced into American exile by the Hitler
régime. It was in the Russian Tea Room on Manhattan’s 57th Street. He was
wearing an elegant single-breasted suit (with vest) and a wide-brimmed Panama
straw hat, as if in disguise or at least camouflage. His jacket pockets were
stuffed with a copy of a New York evening newspaper and the jagged-edge
clippings already excerpted from the morning reports. He was an inveterate
clipper and collector. In his first breakthrough period in the Berlin of the
1920s Grosz had brilliantly used a miscellany of what he called Schnipsel
(scraps) to compose his notorious Dada-collages. Although he was now into
other things in his Manhattan office and Long Island studio, his old-style
Archiv lived on, for there had been a widespread aesthetic recognition of the
significance of bits-and-pieces, indeed there had been in fact a cultural institu-
tionalization of the cutting.
In the case of Grosz (and so many others) it amounted to a lifelong obses-
sion. He had begun, at the outset of his career, collecting the widest variety of
Schnipsel, of clippings and cuttings. Once, in a letter of 1918, he wrote about
also salvaging bus tickets, restaurant menus, banner headlines (mostly about
German generals, Ludendorff and Hindenberg), cooking recipes, paragraphs
from serialized novelettes, bread-ration coupons, stock market listings. (They
all still exist, intact, in his Nachlass preserved in the Berlin Academy of Arts
and Sciences.)
The clipping itself almost became an objet d’art in those early twentieth-
century days when men of letters and art searched for new ways to root them-
selves in reality. Sometimes they even fancied their imagined conceits to be “a
new reality,” vicarious or virtual or whatever. In any case, they were commit-
ted to evade their lonely perch in the designated ivory tower. And thus it came
to be thought that cuttings (and other bits of throw-away scraps) contained
documented truths or, at least (or even more), vibrations of contemporaneity
and the chaos of our modern existence. The clip was handy, preservable, and
ubiquitous. It also looked good in a scholar’s research Zettel-Kästchen, or
pasted on a haphazard collage, featuring hole-punched trolley transfers, or an
Aschinger menu announcing the soup-de-jour (among other price-worthy deli-
cacies). Artists like Kurt Schwitters, Max Ernst, and Hannah Höch added mean-
ingful pieces of flotsam and jetsam, among other aforementioned detritus of a
busy day, to widespread acclaim. Art critics and historians like the authorita-
tive Aby Warburg recognized the innovative inspiration and helped to estab-
lish avant-garde reputations.
Last but not least, there developed around this time a pioneering “clipping
service” in Paris called “Argus de la presse.” It became a prosperous cottage
industry for a century or so–before the invention of Google, that computerized
near-omniscient search-machine on the Internet–which catered to artists, writ-
ers, and very-important-persons in all walks of life. The German branches
xii The Language of Journalism

proudly referred to themselves formidably as the Zeitungsausschnitt-Industrie.

Thousands of clients wanted cuttings about themselves, their works and ac-
tivities, and/or about certain persons or subjects they were following. All the
world’s press was soon being creatively cannibalized, and the business of
cutting-and-pasting had its years of glory. American agencies even thought of
themselves as some kind of “intellectual clearing house.” One even announced
to its clients its motto, borrowing from Andrew Carnegie, the tycoon of steel
and the patron of popular public libraries, to wit: “Nowadays every man has to
read and study, to get to the basics of things in order to be equipped, in the ever
sharper struggle of life, to survive.”
Yesterday’s newspaper was no longer “rubbish.” The print media were seen
by the clippers and their clients, the collectors, as–when you get right down to
it–essentially a raw collection of clippable items. When they were properly
cut, labeled, pasted into context and cross-referenced, it would all amount to a
source of cultural strength for Carnegie-sponsored libraries and Darwinian
struggles-for-existence…also in the search for truth (and sociologists like Max
Weber and Georg Simmel began to recognize journalism, at its best, as a form
of scholarship). It also became a source of art and even beauty when avant-
garde aesthetics gave modernism its museum-keeping seal of approval. It was,
moreover, taken to be a primary source of historical record…and an Interna-
tional Conference in the year 1908 discussed for days the value of the newspa-
per to historians as a body of reliable evidence. Everything seemed to be
going the cut-and-paste way of the Schnipsel.
Proust, be it recorded, gave this phenomena a touch of his own. On occa-
sion, when he brought himself to think of what his fellow-writers in France,
especially those forlorn souls (like Sainte-Beuve) who wrote for the literary
pages of the popular Paris press, were actually up to…he gasped at their soulless
collaboration with a form so mechanical and repellent. In every copy of Le
Constitutionel, over the same columns on the same page, one would find
every single Monday Sainte-Beuve’s Causeries du Lundi. The papers, still
moist from the printing, were available at the local kiosk and…to be frank about
it, they were (for some) rather more inviting and fetching than the brioches
being dipped in the café-au-lait in the local bistro. Most astonishing of all was
the miraculous repetitiousness of all those printer’s-inked texts whereby the
second or third copy of that morning’s edition featured, lo and behold, the
very same stories (and columns, and headlines) which he had just been look-
ing at in his own copy. What would he have made of the prime-time images on
our television screens? Such mass recurrence could only be rebarbative.
Proust made much of this “conceit.” He reflected dourly that the same ideas
and images were being transported all over the country that morning and
simultaneously being inserted into the minds of a vast readership!
And yet, and yet….The “culture of the clipping,” in its modern develop-
ment, actually predated the moist, inked pages of the morning newspaper.
 Introduction xiii

One suspects that the watershed of modern communications, its splendors

and its miseries, came soon after Gutenberg’s sixteenth-century invention of
printing and the seventeenth-century discovery of new scientific “marvels,”
or facts, or truths. But what was a fact, and why did it have to be so short, or
brief, or concise in order to be true? Possibly because the “hateful fact” would
be so instrumental, as T.H. Huxley remarked, in killing so many “beautiful
theories.” The nitty-gritty details were proving to be the constant enemy of the
airy-fairy abstractions. An item of “new news”–viz., the Copernicus story and
Galileo’s follow-up, or Newton and Harvey on apples and blood streams–
could destroy old beliefs, hoary attitudes, yesterday’s assumptions. Could
anyone be content anymore to be sitting quietly in his room and engaged in
pure thought about the largest matters? When experiments were being devised
all around them to establish a new and decisive kind of proof, graphic, logical
and altogether incontrovertible?
It was inevitable, given the vagaries of the human mind, for men of intellect
and curiosity to be of divided views on such matters. There was the faction of
the fact, led by Francis Bacon who delighted in the post-Gutenberg world
where knowledge could quickly be disseminated, in a compact form, with
details to be listed and tabulated. Concision favored aphorism, and his Ad-
vancement of Learning (1605) Bacon hailed the new style, “sententious sen-
tences,” as allowing (in a glorious phrase) “the wit more free to turn and
tosse….” But Bacon’s factology was soon to be denounced as an undigested
heap of details, for details could only blur the whole and true picture of reality.
Even crisp brevity and short terse sentences–the “army of particulars”–were
not at the heart of true knowledge. Theory, and interpretation, and well-founded
general opinions were the soundest methods for the path ahead. Centuries
later we can find Wittgenstein, full of ingenious abstractions, arguing that
“Die Welt zerfällt in Tatsachen (Facts fragment the world.)”*
As far as journalists and scholars are concerned, what I have called factology
actually divided them into two camps. For one, as a historian of the “fact
culture” has written: All honest investigations “shared an emphasis on truth,
an insistence on fact over fiction and imagination, a preference for firsthand
and credible witnesses, and a rhetoric of impartiality”(Shapiro, Culture of

* Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus logico-philosophicus (1922), p. 7. In the 1922 ed.;

and pp. 30-31 in the 1961 ed. In both texts it is translated mildly as “The world
divides into facts.” Other translators give it a more drastic touch inasmuch as the the
German word “zerfällt” can mean disintegration as well as “consists of” or “divides
into.”
Wittgenstein presumably belonged to the fact-faction; but he might not have been
averse to a quasi-mystical suggestion that, in giving order and coherence to the
world, the division into facts could also help…in point of fact…to disintegrate it. The
ideal of a good cosmic order, with everything in its proper place in the universe, is
often very close to the dark vision of a coming or an accompanying catastrophe.
Attractive utopias seem always to need a violent, purifying inauguration.
xiv The Language of Journalism

Fact, p. 5). The reporter of realities, whether for scientific advancement or new
discovery, became in the infectious enthusiasm of Francis Bacon (and the
Baconians to follow) what we would be calling a Culture Hero. He rejected
“rumour and the gossip of the streets.” He cited only believable eyewitnesses.
He was open about his sources. He was “sober and severe” (and not “a vain-
speaking and light person”).
For the other camp, the search for real truths was obliged to rise above
factology. Finding a mere fact was not to discover a black-on-white witness to
reality, a simple and infallible guarantor of a truth about nature or human
action. In short, facts were only a starting point–and we would be having to
deal with the thornier, more profound problems involved in
“conjecture… hypotheses… inference” (and the like), not to mention
“reflection… principles… theory.”
The worship of the fact could become little more than a fetish if, in its
ritualistic innocence, it misperceives (as is, alas, often the case) the small piece
of reality which it hopes to record accurately and truly for all time. Errors
happen.
This dualism of fact and opinion–sometimes presented as the conflict be-
tween objectivity and subjectivity, between impartiality and bias–is not, of
course, as simple as it is often argued to be, for it comprises a treacherous
ambiguity which has been misleading observers for well over four centuries.
In the very beginning of the printed newspaper there was a sensitive early
awareness of how difficult it was to report events, happenings–“new news”–
accurately and justly. In 1644, as printed newspapers were beginning to come
on to the scene, Richard Collings conceded (as every candid editor has ever
since): “And indeed in many Papers there have been such apparent contradic-
tions and such a thwarting of the truth by an endeavour to enlarge the story,
that while the Reader turns Sceptick and finds he hath reason to suspect, he
therefore doth draw often unto himself a wilde conclusion and will believe
anything.” But the reports from “honest hands,” he insists (with perhaps a
shade of noble naiveté), would be neither “defective or excessive.” Still, don’t
we all begin this way (and doesn’t it turn out to be an illusion and indeed self-
deception)? A seventeenth-century journalistic contemporary of Collings val-
iantly promised, as every crusading or investigative reporter has ever since: “I
intend…to encounter falsehood with the sword of truth. I will not endeavour to
flatter the world into a belief of things that are not; but truly inform them of
things that are.” Yet another contemporary colleague vowed that he would
represent things “as they really happen.”2 Where have we heard all this before?
Such lofty ideals were not first pronounced by journalists in a London printshop
but, as it happened, in the English courts of law by justice-obsessed jurists and
judges. (For example, one “should not swear a thing to be so or not unless he
know it to be so or not; He must not relie on Conjectures, Rumours, or Prob-
abilities.”)
 Introduction xv

The ideal intentions of honest and truthful journalism seem to be fairly

constant over all time, but the lapses and deviations–to which all editors and
reporters have been heir–discolor the true history of the journalistic attempt
(and indeed of the scholarly historian’s efforts) to “tell it like it is [or was]….”
One man’s moderation is another man’s excess; one writer’s sword of truth cuts
its way, in the eyes of another, only to some “wilde conclusion.” Some ambi-
tious journalists only came to enlarge and embellish; some few others were
modestly content to be lean, sparing, positivistically factual.
That ingenious mathematician and inventor Robert Hooke (1635-1703)
tried to devise something which he thought was a conception of an ideal
reporter, a wise and virtuous spirit who would be only devoted to matter-of-
factness: “I conceive him to be no ways prejudiced or byassed, by interest,
affection, hatred, fear or hope, or the vain-glory of telling strange Things,
so as to make him swarve from the truth of Matter of Fact.” Yet the finest
English writers of the day, caught up in the passions of utopia and revolu-
tion in Cromwell’s Commonwealth–I am thinking of, on the one side,
John Milton and Marchamount Nedham; and, on the other, John Locke,
James Howell and Thomas Hobbes–composed ringing manifestoes and
well-argued pamphlets in the great debate of the day….But none were free,
nor could they possibly be, from bias, interest, affection, hatred, fear or hope
(or “vain-glory”). These personal qualities of mind, character and style were
all just as incorrigibly “matter of fact” (or thought to be) as the date of
Cromwell’s death, 1658, and the subsequent return of King Charles from France,
1660.3
There was a strange and striking utopian element that was in the handwrit-
ten transcription of excerpts (from books and documents) as well as in the
collection of cuttings (from so-called “news-books” and, later, newspapers).
Here among the noteworthy and worthwhile items, all relevant and put in
order, were the building blocks of a reality perceived; and implicit (or, even
better, explicit) therein were truths about life and nature, or about science and
society. This enthused faith, as I have suggested, was akin to a utopia of reason
and progress. With each newly recorded fact, whether established by careful
experiment, or sharper observation, or on-the-spot witnessing, we were forever
moving closer to the solution of old mysteries and hitherto intractable prob-
lems. But ever since the ancient emergence in classical Greece of an enlight-
ened rationalism no thoughtful or sophisticated person could be unaware that
any such solution could itself be faulty and unwarranted and would be, in turn,
susceptible to revision and/or displacement. Science corrects. It is committed
to overcome an endemic human forgetfulness, the amnesia which we are em-
barrassed to detect in the whole repetitive history of governance with its wars
and frauds, and in the pattern of error and illusion in intellectual explanation.
I myself should have known better. Some years ago, with time on my hands,
I turned to the collection of cuttings from newspapers and the periodical press
xvi The Language of Journalism

which I had assembled fairly systematically, as an editor and journalist in

Europe and America over some forty years or so. I was confident that therein,
with facts and quotations galore, lay truths about life and letters in our time
which could richly fill two or three volumes on any subject and its related
themes. Here, surely, was empirical evidence to buttress a thousand insights
into the nature and practice of “the Language of Journalism.” My personal
archive was “wide-ranging” but in no way complete; there may well have been
small faults, or gaping omissions, or other shortcomings and imperfections.
The scissors were not always there for the cutting. (That glorious instrument
which, in the memorable 1517 portrait of Erasmus of Rotterdam is seen in a
corner of a bookshelf, hanging at the ready on a hook!)* And so many items
had ragged edges which rendered some words tantalizingly unreadable (with
dates and page numbers disagreeably absent). And, again, sometimes the mu-
cilage paste was so irremovably sticky that the material on the other side, at
first ignored but suddenly pertinent, was quite irretrievable. (Historians of the
clipping have often recorded academic discussions about which glue had the
proper chemical consistency for “the other side” not to be lost forever!)
And it was just about this time (1556) that a Dr. Konrad Gesner, excited in
the Renaissance about how much new there was to know and grasp, recom-
mended to all scholars “to cut cleanly”; for neatness was essential to his pro-
gram of “indexing” a plethora of materials which one couldn’t possibly keep
in good order in one’s head. He advised writing down words and phrases to
remember; and categories were devised for quick classification. Thus, “cut-
and-paste” became wedded to file-and-find. Dr. Gesner gave system to the
whole procedure.
The man was the metaphysician of the Excerpt. He even dealt with six-
teenth-century books according to his own stringent method and intellectual
style (cut the pages cleanly). He also recommended a not-too-permanent mu-
cilage so that the various items could be removed from one file and reinserted
in another…in which context they took on additional meaning.
Alas, the good Dr. Gesner often remained stuck, as in a sticky paste, in the
shortcomings of his own innovative impulses. In one instance he had to apolo-
gize to a colleague named Johann Bauhin for not answering his kind letter. It
was not available for reply since Dr. G. had cut out the various passages that
interested him for his files, in the favored arrangements (alphabetical or the-
matic). Books may have been grossly dismembered, but it was all in the ser-
vice of a grand idea, a Biblioteca Universalis.
By the time of Francis Bacon the idiosyncratic drive to the systematization
of knowledge, consigning every little scrap of a useful fact to its proper place,
was approved by the master. Bacon wrote: “I hold that the diligence and pains
* The painting in question was by the Flemish artist, Quentin Massys (1466-1530).
See Anke Te Heesen, “Fleiss, Gedächtnis, Sitzfleisch (Diligence, Memory, and
Patience),” in Cut and Paste, p. 147.
 Introduction xvii

in collecting common Places is of great use and certainty in studying.” What

the pioneers of the new sciences and general intellectual enlightenment were
enjoying was a miraculous extension of memory. The “storehouse of facts”
was the insurance policy against that awful occasion “when if we wanted any
particular Thing we could not tell where to find it.”
Until the electronic and digital era of the twenty-first century this was
standard intellectual practice, whether among journalists and editors or scien-
tists, with minor personal differences. Some researchers persisted in cannibal-
izing printed books, tearing out and pasting up paragraphs and even whole
pages. In the age of cheap paperbacks this was not too costly; but what a far cry
from the personal computer’s quick and clean consultation of Google, “the
research machine.” For my part I had long since abandoned making notes by
hand, finding my own handwriting too difficult to read easily. I used to type on
the 3x5 cards for my little filing box in the “typewriter room” of the British
Museum, as it then was. The excerpting was noisy but quick, especially if one
had noted the pages in advance. As John Locke put it (in 1706):”The Places we
design to extract from are to be marked upon a piece of Paper that we may do
it after we have read the Book out.” I am afraid, as I have already hinted, that
“Reading out” newspapers and magazines offered an additional pitfall when
the choice excerpt on one side of the page ruined the pertinent passage on the
reverse side. In the 19th-century when the “clipping services” (Argus, etc.)
came to the aid of scholarly research with a useful division of labor (they
clipped, you collected), all agencies learned to acquire two or three copies of
all publications–so that nothing would be missed by those conscientious pair
of scissors. But back in the world of Bacon and Locke, and their marvellous
Commonplace Books, there was a nagging fear that excerpts would be missing
some fresh observations not duly classifiable, some new insights and original
experience.4
The style of research, the ways of ascertaining a fact, and the method of
registering an accurate and true insight...all were preoccupations of the early
modern scientists. They influenced (and were influenced by) the revolution-
ary progress made by Copernicus and Gutenberg and all the others. The exten-
sion of memory was one great factor, for without a handy record of mankind’s
trials and errors there can only be mental stagnation in which old falsities get
propagated and awkward contradictions just happen to slip one’s mind. The
cut-and-paste technique I have mentioned above seemed to be consistently
revised in order to match the revisionism of the scientific temperament. Yet
each new generation was troubled by the same rather primitive difficulties.
The physicist Robert Hooke, not unlike Dr. Gesner long before him, was con-
stantly irritated about “Mouth Glew.” Its chemical composition needed to be
such that it could safely be applied on evidence of new discoveries, and thus
guarantee that “they may at any time upon occasion be presently removed or
altered in their Position or Order, that which was plac’d first may be plac’d
xviii The Language of Journalism

middle most, or last.” Ingenious, if finicky, minds of the day also concerned
themselves with the paper on which the seminal cuttings were to be pasted; as
well as with the drawers and the closets in which they were to be pigeonholed;
and the like. In our own day historians have devoted themselves to every little
apparently trivial aspect of the Great Breakthrough in science, medicine, and
technology that transformed European societies. There are now histories of
“cut paper” and (as they cannot help saying) “the culture of the cutting” in
modern civilization. There are catalogues of the varieties of “collecting” and
the emergence of new collectibles. There are even studies, with anatomical
asides, of the Sitzfleisch (all those fleshy bottoms!) required for the qualities of
patience and diligence to accumulate the raw material for scientific investiga-
tion and the framing of hypotheses.
German “historians of ideas” have been especially adventurous in these
fields. After all, they can always (and they do) point to the wit and wisdom of
Goethe, not only as a man-of-letters but also as a publicist and betimes natural
scientist. On one of his journeys–making sketches, scribbling quatrains, plan-
ning novels and dramas–he was inspired to collect all the documents which
might prove necessary for his ambitions. “Die Acten” consisted of every kind
of printed page and publication he happened to come across: newspapers,
weekly journals, texts of sermons locally preached, official proclamations,
theater programs, catalogues (with prices), etc. In the view of Ernst Robert
Curtius, Goethe was here “cutting up the world,” each bit constituting “a slice
of life.” He also speculated about the road not taken–how would the Goethean
ouevre have looked if the Master had decided not to collect-and-cut but to
copy or make handwritten jottings (the way he used to do in his notebooks).
Now he was collecting all the raw materials, binding them in sturdy files,
arranging them in orderly fashion on nearby shelves.
The Hookes and the Lockes might have objected, but where research tech-
niques for the use of science might confuse and confound literary work, for a
man of imagination, spinning fictions, they might by indirection facilitate
creativity. In any case, odd collections of marvellous details have contributed
to intellectual fertility.
One question remains. Did the sensitive and curious minds seek out conge-
nial matters of fact and impose order and meaning on them? Or did he read and
cut and clip and paste and file and then find himself thunderstruck by a light-
ning-like illumination about...the course of history...the nature of time and
space...the rise and fall of languages and cultures...the course of curses and
taboos...the onset of disease and death...the tragedies of utopias and
revolutions...the turning points in the arts of logic and explanation...the ori-
gins of the species and the very laws of motion in the universe?
Clippings in their collectivity needed to be handled with special care.
Obviously: a single story, a valued piece of “new news,” may or may not be
completely accurate. A hundred excerpts from the daily and periodical press
 Introduction xix

are surely replete with errors, contradictions, mistranslations and misunder-

standings, and worse.
1. When the collector assembled his archive out of personal, and indeed
romantical, inspiration, it turned out to be mostly a fairly utilitarian stratagem
with hardly a pretence at the scientific or the scholarly purposes which elated
the early founding fathers of the cutting (Bacon, Locke, et al.). Theodor
Fontane, that superb nineteenth-century novelist of Berlin and Mark
Brandenburg, attested to the high value of the growing archives in his day, as
part of a critical effort to recover the past and capture realities. But so far as he
was concerned he used the technique to supply what he called Kolorit, mean-
ing the colorful details, the warmth and liveliness that the broad themes in his
own writing needed to have. Fontane’s oeuvre remains rich and readable; but
how much of its meaningful background is still true, the way it actually and
truly was?…Clippings yellow, crinkle, fall apart. Only art and the imagination
survive. And it is practically irrelevant if the fact-driven author got, say,
“Fehrbellin” (where Kleist’s hero, the Prinz von Homburg, famously defied all
the enemies of Brandenburg) exactly or quite right. If all the facts were con-
trived, or imagined, would not the art (as in Shakespeare) still have been
permanent?
2. When the collector assembles his archive out of motives which are pro-
fessional and intellectual, closely linked with a general philosophy and a
committed scientific thesis of one shade or another, it could turn out to be an
assemblage of arguable evidence, a secret weapon in a war of ideas, massive in
its bias, and infatuating in its expansiveness. More often than not, it all adds
up to what the collector (or his backers) intended the end-sum to be. The ever-
growing collection of cuttings becomes a huge article of faith: polemical,
dogmatic, tautological. At one extreme it has all the qualities of a charlatanry;
at the other an exercise, at once gallant and futile, in self-fulfilling research. In
a previous book I cautioned (essentially myself) against the dangers of the
collectible-syndrome: “…the fragments which he brings back from his search
were perhaps strung together long before in his own mind.” This, I suspected,
was the basic solipsism of the intellectual historian. “One must look if one is to
find, but one may be always finding what one is looking for….”5
I offer two brief examples of this collectible-syndrome, illustrating the cut-
and-paste folly of two disoriented scientists in our time, inveterate clippers in
their own way, with whom fate dealt badly…in “the most unkindest cutting of
all”: news of one’s own error and imminent oblivion.
Einstein remains world-famous; nobody, or hardly anybody, remembers
Professor Otto Gehrcke (1878-1960). For half a century and more Gehrcke
stalked his colleague, his fellow-physicist, the Nobel prize winner (in 1921)
Albert Einstein. It wasn’t as if he hated or resented the man, as a success, or a
celebrity, or even as a Jew (and the Berlin of their day was rife with anti-
Semitism). He just thought he was plain wrong. And he proceeded relentlessly,
xx The Language of Journalism

with the energy and dedication of an Inspector Javert pursuing Jean Valjean,
to accumulate the evidence to prove to the world that the so-called Theory of
Relativity was a snare and a delusion, and that everybody involved had been
mistaken, misled, and grievously manipulated.
At the heart of Professor Gehrcke’s campaign was his Archiv, an exhaustive
(yet ever expanding) collection of newspaper cuttings that purported to docu-
ment the fraud which had been perpetrated on a gullible public opinion. His
Archiv contained thousands of items about “the Father of Relativity.” Every
little Schnipsel about the man and his work was cut out and filed in his deadly
collection. It grew and grew, and became a “clearing house” for a great and
remorseless polemic. Other more temperate physicists have come on to the
scientific scene as critics of Einstein’s relativity: and they offered alternative
field theories to explain time and space, light and motion, and other cosmic
fundamentals of the universe. But Gehrcke is as good as forgotten. His vast
collection of cuttings gathers dust in the Library of the Max Planck Institute
for the History of Science. The last newspaper clipping is from 1955, the date
of Einstein’s death in Princeton, New Jersey.
The scissors were the weapon…not to cause mayhem but to mythologize, to
demonize. There were many sophisticated men of science who believed (like
Gehrcke) that only experimental physics could come up with something true
and valid about the cosmos. Theoretical physicists (like Einstein) could come
up only with...just that: finely-spun theories which would never be proved and
could only be insinuated into world opinion by egregious methods of mass
suggestion linked to the usual and nefarious techniques of press (later: media)
manipulation. Today it would be ascribed to a species of sinister conspiracy,
with the usual suspects to be rounded up (and rounded on).
Einstein had it more difficult than Darwin. The opponents of Relativity
were indisputably of a higher quality (in terms of scientific credentials) than
the enemies of the idea of Evolution. Dr. Gehrcke himself was a physicist of
repute and distinction, popular among students of the Berlin University. He
did significant research that, in one case, presaged the “Atom Model” of Niels
Bohr and, in another, the discovery of the Isotope (by Francis Aston).
But factionalism makes for divided camps even among the most reasonable
of rationalists: and Gehrcke railed against the “phantastische Theorien” and
“uferlose [boundless] Spekulationen” which, wrapped by Einstein in formal
mathematics, stood truth and reality upside-down. Why had Einstein become
so “popular,” indeed emerging as early as the 1920s as a media star? But for a
while the counter-movement also enjoyed publicity and notoriety. The distin-
guished Max von Laue was alarmed at the “mass meetings” against Einstein
with their populistic demagogy and undertones of illiberal anti-Semitism.
But those were not Dr. Gehrcke’s weapons. His collection of clippings were
the thing. They functioned almost like voodoo pieces in a secret tribal ven-
detta. He expanded his Archiv avidly. It would all contribute to a devastating
 Introduction xxi

refutation–exposing the phenomenon of Massen-Suggestion in the popular-

ity of Einstein’s dubious ideas of time and space. In this great debate when
would the rebuttal finally come? All were waiting for the knockdown rejoin-
der. But the Archiv was evidently not yet ready to be “written up.” Much was,
at the moment, “unsorted” and “not yet worked through.”
The historian of Gehrcke’s collection has speculated about why Professor
Otto Gehrcke hadn’t ever fulfilled his promise. Obviously, in the year 1933
with the Nazis coming to power, he could easily have obtained lavish govern-
mental support. Hitler’s anti-Semitism had consistently targeted “Jewish sci-
ence.” But Gehrcke was not a Nazi, not a NSDAP party member nor, as far as we
know, any kind of an anti-Semite in his attitudes. He had nothing against the
Jews; he just had something against Albert Einstein. And he hated his Theory,
which he called, in a lecture at Heidelberg University (in 1936), “the rottenest
[allerfäulste] fruit on the tree of scientific explanation.”
In 1945, when World War II ended, with Albert Einstein in victorious America
and Gehrcke in defeated Germany, the United States gave protection and shel-
ter to a great many leading scientists in Central and Eastern Europe. Gehrcke
was not among them. He remained in the Communist East, taught at Jena
University, and died in the DDR in January 1960. He had been nominated for
high prizes but received none: his “Einstein” campaign always stood in the
way. His Archiv, so sedulously cultivated for a lifetime, impressed few and
convinced nobody. It was a fetish, but evidently had no voodoo or other
black-magical powers to harm Einstein; and, in the end, it boomeranged against
himself. His clippings had no cutting edge.
Lenin’s connection with the cut-and-paste phenomenon that has been haunt-
ing us is a posthumous story, and has something to do with Leon Trotsky
which makes it all the more ideologically serendipitous. The Bolsheviks had
been in mourning ever since the death of their great leader in 1924. Stalin was
sorely tempted to contrive some invincible claim to immortality for the…well,
immortal Father of the Revolution. In the first place, Comrade Lenin was not
to be buried like ordinary mortals (like even Karl Marx, under his heavy
London headstone in Highgate soil). He was to be preserved, and to be exhib-
ited; and to be present, and be forever among us. Nor was this a more romantic
flourish of sentimentalism. It was a deserved tribute to a very superior person,
the very first in a vanguard of New Men. The socialist movement and the
inauguration of the communist society constituted a great turning point for
the human race; and Marxism promised (and Trotsky predicted) that ordinary
mortals, come the revolution, would acquire the stature of a Kant or a Goethe
or a Renaissance Man (Michelangelo, Leonardo, Galileo, take your pick).
Lenin’s greatness illustrated it, but what could prove it beyond all doubt?
An invitation went out from Moscow to a well-known professor of anatomy
who was considered the foremost brain specialist of the day. He was Dr. Oscar
Vogt, a director of the prestigious Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin, Germany’s
xxii The Language of Journalism

main agency for scientific research. Vogt was at the time the world’s greatest
authority on his subject, and the honorific invitation to the Kremlin called for
a press conference (and not a mere notice on the calendar of academic events).
The good professor was enamoured of newspapers, loved to give interviews;
and this addiction to news and publicity may have proved to be his undoing.
In all the years he devoted to “Lenin’s brain” the headlines in the press were
his favorite means of communication (and not the article in a scientific journal
or a lecture in the academy).
In 1925 was Dr. Vogt’s first stab at the preserved form of the Bolshevik
leader. Several years later, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the
“October Revolution” (which was in November), the Bolsheviks opened a
new Moscow Institute for Brain Research, with Vogt giving the inaugural
lecture. So what else was new? Well, the man had been conducting micro-
scopic examinations for years, and from what I gather from the accounts of his
work, the techniques of surgical segmentation allowed him to compare piece
for piece. He found the “third segment” rather larger which might suggest that
the “pyramidal cells” found therein could have led to, or might have pro-
duced, exceptional, highly developed “associative faculties.” Whether this
was a factor in Lenin’s great 1905 victory in the Russian Social Democratic
Party (“Bolshevik” means majority)–or in his ingenious persuasion of the
Kaiser’s government to allow him to return home from Zurich to make the
1917 revolution–or in his well-timed strategy to liquidate the democratically
elected Duma and seize exclusive power for his Soviet cadres…these are mat-
ters which are surely beyond the ken of surgery and biology and any kind of
genetic determinism.
Nevertheless, Pravda made the most of it. And given Dr. Vogt’s touch for
publicity, the world press had a sensational story. For the Kremlin its Lenin
Cult had another bit of iconic good news, and the doctrine of “historical
materialism” had another historic instance of material causation. “Lenin’s
genius” could have been–indeed was–embedded somewhere in the brain’s
cortical cells between the pyramid and the segment. Skillful Comintern propa-
gandists, like the legendary Willi Muenzenberg, made sure that the tentativenss
of the scientific-clinical language, with its may’s and could have’s and hypo-
thetical possible’s, was blurred as the headlines and feuilletons oversimplified
the tale of a wondrous breakthrough.
Dr. Vogt himself contributed freely to the Party newspapers, and his articles
served as a further blow to Marxism’s philosophical enemies, i.e. to any kind
of “metaphysics” or “body-mind dualism.” The theme of Lenin’s brain was
often coupled with John Reed’s famous paeans of praise for Lenin’s genius in
directing the “ten days that shook the world.” New editions of Reed’s report-
age–now even truer than ever–rolled off the presses.
Vogt’s Institut kept busy. By 1929 he was able to report that he had already
assembled in his laboratories some dozen “élite brains” to deepen the neuro-
 Introduction xxiii

logical research in his quest for the cells, or the genes, that made men great. His
Berlin base, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, also flourished; and Vogt now headed
“the largest brain research center in the world.” His preference, rare among
practicing scientists, for the public press conference remained; he thought he
could highlight and underline what he wanted to say; but what reporters and
editors made of his story surprised but rarely upset him. He thought he was
using the press for the purposes of scientific enlightenment; but the press was
using him for yet another beguiling, exotic feature. As for his Archiv it ap-
peared to be regularly enriched by the addition of another choice item, a
veritable scoop, sometimes a sensation. He spent much time collecting every
clipping, every newspaper feature on the subject since he had his unexpected
invitation to Moscow. He was widely, if loosely, called “a Leninist,” and the
charges ultimately led to his expulsion from his Berlin Institut as a pro-Soviet
propagandist. But his Leninism was not in his ideology (his own views were
said to be dry and neutral)–it was a confused mix of politics and vanity, of
eugenics and socialism. More than that, observers even noted that Oscar Vogt
began to resemble Lenin more and more: the balding head, the goatee beard,
the angular eyebrows; photo-editors had a habit of “twinning them together.”
Dr. Vogt began to rue the day he thought of giving his first press
conference...and yet, even in his last days, he could not resist the temptation.
After the war he was approached by Manuel Gasser, a Swiss editor and intellec-
tual whom I knew in the Berlin of the 1940s. He was asked to contribute a
piece about how Germans view “The German Character” now that the evil
Nazi régime was no more. (Hadn’t Lenin, and stolid old Stalin, proved them-
selves “brainier”?) He obliged, and there was yet another clipping to add to his
collection. His article in the Swiss monthly Du went on, and on, as of old,
about the configurations of the brain...and what they might have signified.
Wasn’t it all there, in the crevices? The evil, the crimes? Vogt’s biographer
sadly concluded that this is what comes from cultivating a lifelong addiction
to clippings and cuttings.6 He came to believe everything he had been reading
on the subject.
For a previous book of mine I collected over some ten years innumerable
“cuttings,” enough to buttress the main theses about utopians and their revo-
lutionary enthusiasms with some hundred pages of footnotes. I had collected
old newspapers and new books, as well as recondite articles and obscure pam-
phlets. Shelves groaned under weighty volumes; overstuffed filing cabinets
refused to close. Halfway into the manuscript I changed the system from an
over-complicated thematic arrangement to an over-simple alphabetical order-
liness. I now knew where to find Tolstoy’s notion of an “Ant Brotherhood” as
a metaphor for a good and perfect society (– under A)...and how to locate Jacob
Talmon’s views about Zionism and its half-dream half-nightmare (– under Z).
All else between A and Z fell easily into place; but I sometimes felt I had lost
grip on the sequence of the centuries, for Condorcet came long after Camus,
xxiv The Language of Journalism

and Dante’s vision of the Twofold Paradise was digitally entangled with (un-
der J? under F?) Joachim of Fiore’s medieval hope for a Third Reich....
All these snares were as nothing compared to the complexities which now
had assailed me with my half-century’s collection of cuttings purported to be
at once a topical history of my own times and a documentation (replete with
by-lines and headlines, scoops and quotes) of what during, roughly, these
eight decades has happened to the language of journalism.
Not much! I hear the cynics cry. Not much that we have not encountered
before! add the historians, keepers of all our experiences.
My reader can now presumably judge whether or not the clippings I have
assembled, haphazardly preserved, and annotated at length, took on, subtly
over the years, a predetermined shape, tendentious and even manipulated. Or
rather, whether “the last archive” (before, that is, Google) did in fact hand-pick
useful and arresting old-fangled evidence for greater understanding and in-
sight into the language of journalism and “what the papers say.”
In any case, what has remained obvious and robust over all those years is, as
I must admit, that confessional moment when the most learned intellectual of
the day, Pierre Bayle (1647-1706), conceded (and I have cited his letter of
1673 before): “I recognize quite plainly that my insatiable craving for news is
one of those inveterate diseases that set all treatment at defiance. It’s dropsy,
that’s what it is. The more you give it, the more it wants.” 7 Somewhere between
the addiction and the excess lie the seeds of a newspaper culture.

London/Berlin M.J.L.
October 2003
 Part 1

Towards a Theory of Journalistic

Malpractice

“I recognize quite plainly that my insatiable

craving for news [mon insatiabilité de
nouvelles] is one of those inveterate diseases
that defy all treatment. It’s dropsy, that’s what it
is. The more you give it, the more it wants.
[C’est une hydropsie toute pure; plus on lui
fournit, plus elle demande.”]
—Pierre Bayle, letter (Paris, 27 February 1673)

“Professionally you try to get as close to things

as possible, but never to the point of involve-
ment. If journalism were a philosophy rather
than a trade, it would say there is no order in
the universe, no discernible meaning,
without...the daily paper. So it’s a monumental
duty we wretches have who slug the chaos into
sentences arranged in columns on a page of
newsprint. If we’re to see things as they are and
make our deadlines, we had better not get
(personally) involved.”
—E.L. Doctorow, The Waterworks (1994)

“I’m with you on the free press. It’s the

newspapers I can’t stand.”
—Tom Stoppard,“Night and Day” (1978)
 1

From A. N. Whitehead to Irving Kristol

Illusions and Self-Deception

If our subject is what it is programmatically set out to be, “our newspaper
culture,” or “Culture and the Media,” then I confess that I am myself not so
sure I know what it really amounts to. “Media” is probably unproblematical. It
used to be known as the Press, until television came along; and although no
channel or station or newspaper is ever referred to as “a medium”—the spiritu-
alists at all the séances in the world would rise up and protest!—“media,” in
the plural, is clear and understandable enough. We know the messages of the
media: information, knowledge, interpretation, analysis, criticism, and last
but not least: entertainment. But what has “culture” to do with it?
We could, I suppose, deal with the culture of the media professionals. It’s an
approach not very different from Margaret Mead’s among the Samoans when
she was investigating the culture of the native tribes. For among the tribes of
media men and women there are also customs and mores, rituals and taboos,
which call out for anthropological classification. But if field an-thropology
could take us too far afield, perhaps homespun aesthetics is closer.
We could just as easily discourse on the subject of how well in the media
such cultural subjects as Sunday painting, music, local poetry, community
architecture, and the like are treated (if at all), and the extent to which man’s
artistic aspirations are being reported, recorded, criticized, evaluated, and per-
haps (ultimately) encouraged. Some corners of the media might come away
with fairly good marks—some of the best American newspapers for their me-
ticulous reporting at length and in depth (especially the Wall Street Journal);
the BBC-TV channels for their excellent theater; the London Times for its
“TLS” (Times Literary Supplement); the best Italian newspapers for their terza
pagina, their “third page,” replete with elegant features; in Frankfurt the Frank-
furter Allgemeine Zeitung for its formidable feuilleton; the Swedish television
for its devotion at great and admirable length to its indigenous cinematic
genius Ingmar Bergman.

3
4 The Language of Journalism

One could go on, and then break to disburse the bad marks: to the popular
low-quality press in each of our countries in whose sensational columns there
is rarely any place for anything but sex and crime, violence, and murder,
weeping mothers and/or sadistic fathers; or to the more popular, that is, most
highly “rated,” television programmes which aspire to nothing higher than
the lowest common denominator of thrills and gags which catch and hold the
short attention span of tens of millions of viewers, all teetering on the edge of
uneasy boredom, with dangerous remote control switches at their fingertips. Is
this our theme? Perhaps; perhaps not. I hope the reader of my first volume,
published in 2000, will benevolently give me the benefit of any doubts.
All these matters are surely part of a great problem which has been gener-
ally set for us. Who the makers of the media messages are, what their proper-
ties and characteristics are, their ideas and their idées fixes, their conspicuous
virtues and natural vices—all this is an aspect of valuable current anthropol-
ogy, of the “sociology of knowledge” or the sociology of the knowledge
industry. And, further, the attention (or lack of attention) which is being paid
in our increasingly literate, increasingly educated societies to what in more
old-fashioned times used to be called “the higher things”—this, doubtless,
goes to the heart of such matters as liberal values, democratic ethos, human
ideals, social ethics, and what Walter Lippmann referred to as “the public
philosophy.”
Is the subject really so wide as to embrace anthropology, economics, psy-
chology, sociology, and philosophy (not to mention journalism)?
One philosopher, the great Alfred North Whitehead, wrote the following (in
his Aims of Education, 1929) about the meaning of culture which has been
giving us so much trouble in these pages (and will give us even more, in the
third and concluding volume to come):

Culture is activity of thought, and receptiveness to beauty and human feeling. Scraps
of information have nothing to do with it. A merely well-informed man is the most
useless bore on God’s earth. What we should aim at producing is men who possess
both culture and expert knowledge in some special direction. Their expert knowledge
will give them the ground to start from, and their culture will lead them as deep as
philosophy and as high as art.

This is a noble statement, but more than a little naive in its utopian inno-
cence of the early years of the twentieth century. We have indeed produced
several generations of men, especially in the media, who have “special knowl-
edge in some special direction,” superb technicians of film and of typography,
experts in communication—but have they, or we, been led to realms “as deep
as philosophy” and “as high as art”? More often to depths as low as slander-
ous gossip and to levels as shallow as soap opera.
It is this aspect of liberal and humane innocence which engages me: all our
illusions about information and expertise; our self-deception about literacy
 From A. N. Whitehead to Irving Kristol 5

and mass communication; our careless mistakes and grievous errors about the
useful and constructive function of press and television–or “media”–in a demo-
cratic culture which is increasingly offering more treacherous traps than the
golden opportunities for utopian progress which Whitehead surmised. It is to
this darker aspect of the theme of “Our Newspaper Culture” that I want to turn.
Still, before moving from A. N. Whitehead to, say, Irving Kristol–a City
College classmate of mine in the New York of the 1930s (and my predecessor
as American editor of Encounter in London) whose writing career managed to
encapsulate the zeitgeist of the century–I venture a few remarks about the
connections between the first and second volumes.
Hard Facts and Soft Future
In the development of Western culture from its modern beginnings—some
put it in the English seventeenth century, in the time of Cromwell’s Revolu-
tion, accompanied as it was by brilliant pamphleteers and newssheets (a few
written and edited by no less than John Milton); others put it in the French
eighteenth century in the time of the philosophes of the Enlightenment and
the radical politics of Condorcet, Danton, and Robespierre—we can locate the
special qualities which characterize the spirit of our modern media.
Here was urgency, and public-spiritedness; here was new information about
the way we live and how society is thought to function; here was a new note of
criticism and candid communication, disseminated often at great personal
risks for writers and editors; here were innovative forms of the written word and
the “broadcasting” of various opinions, often dissenting and dangerous.
Each developing nation came to have its own “culture heroes”: men who
went to prison for writing as they pleased, for defending the emerging “rights
of a free press.” The name of the eighteenth-century German émigré to America,
John Peter Zenger, only stands for many who over the centuries fought for the
right to tell truths; his trial and acquittal of the charge of “libel” is considered
the classic landmark.*
But if we move forward in time to our own day we note that this critical
spirit has become an increasingly relentless one. In the past it helped to open
up windows in a fairly closed society. Is it, in its systematic devotion to airing
every issue, blowing a cold wind into every nook and corner, still opening
windows–or smashing them? We must be candid enough to ask of ourselves
self-critical questions like these.

* On the occasion of the 250th anniversary of the Zenger libel trial (4 August 1735),
the U.S. press showed itself to be pompously untroubled. The New York Times
proposed a “toast to the Zenger jury” on behalf of the “American idea”: “The free-
dom of the press to challenge authority and convey complaints of the citizenry is
indispensable in a free society.” Too true. But has nothing happened in the 250 years
to raise an eyebrow of self-critical questioning?
6 The Language of Journalism

The cultural context in which our media have developed has, as I have
already suggested, shaped them into a necessarily critical force, subversive of
conventional attitudes and, more than that, of existing institutions. For if there
is to be progress, le progrès, Fortschritt—a basic ideal in our Western pan-
theon of values—then we have to move forward to the better from the bad.
Distressing evils are in the present; fine hopes are in the future...but only if we
proceed to right wrongs, expose malefactors, improve faulty institutions, ame-
liorate our changing society. C. S. Lewis, no man to be in tune with modern
fashions of thought, curtly dismissed the contemporary class of intellectuals
precisely because “we have trained them to think of the Future as a promised
land which favoured heroes attain...” What he loosely called “the general
movement of our time” had the effect of fixing

men’s affections on the Future, on the very core of temporality. Hence nearly all vices
are rooted in the future. Gratitude looks to the past and love to the present; fear, avarice,
lust, and ambition look ahead....We want a whole race perpetually in pursuit of the
rainbow’s end, never honest nor kind, nor happy now, but always using as mere fuel
wherewith to heap on the altar of the future every real gift which is offered them in the
present.1

Here, then, is the general proposition from which our media have deduced
its essential maxim: good news is no news. Only bad news makes headlines,
interests curious and impatient readers, recaptures colorfully the kaleidoscope
of fast-moving reality. The syndrome is familiar: “Man Bites Dog,” not “Dog
Bites Man,” is the call which must catch the attention of us all.
As a result we have had throughout the twentieth century, in the democratic
communities of the world which have enjoyed a more-or-less free press, an
unending cascade of devastating criticism.
We know about the horror of mounting crime; the dirt in the hospitals; the
child abuse in the homes; the corruption of the police; the wastage of millions
in the military establishments; bribery in high and low government places; the
monstrous hypocrisy of Northern affluence in a world of Southern poverty; the
swindles of financiers and the greed of doctors and lawyers; the miseries of
prison life in our jails; the blackboard jungles and functional illiteracy in our
schools; the muggings in our parks and the gang warfare in our streets; the
pollution of our environment; the insidious drug addictions in our slums. One
could go on to the point of exhaustion. And my point is that it is a wonder of
our lives, almost a psycho-social miracle, that we can get up each day and
survive yet another round of doom and despair.
I am not trying to deride this, only to explain it. Whether it is desirable or
not in the abstract (and we do not live in the abstract), it is inevitable in the
here-and-now and it is sturdily reinforced, for better or worse, by the ethos of
our Western culture—the truth will make us free. The dark side of this faith is
what I want to touch upon in passing.
 From A. N. Whitehead to Irving Kristol 7

In the first place I am not at all certain that it is “the truth,” that is, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, which is being told about the virtues and vices
of our mixed democratic societies; I will return to this in a moment. In the
second place, I am not sure that these so-called truths are invariably making us
more “free,” or more strong and resilient, as liberal and humane societies. I
have been in bookshops in at least a dozen world-capitals where there are
innumerable shelves of books on all four walls—fiction as well as non-fic-
tion—which in this spirit criticize, and expose, and indeed almost annihilate
the very social-political foundations of Western societies. Are we willing to
argue that all this is, invariably, an unqualified source of strength?
We, at least most of my readers, are writers, critical journalists, sceptical
editors, independent intellectuals–and each of us has often dwelt on the “nega-
tive side” of our own cultures and governments. We are justifiably proud of
efforts to tell us what has gone wrong–I myself am groping towards that kind
of critical position in this chapter. But I have also come to the unhappy feeling
that we in the West all too easily say, “Of course we are relentlessly critical—
therefore ours is a healthy society!” I too once believed that, and am now
beginning to disbelieve it. More and more it is, I feel, like saying that because
there are a good dozen brilliant surgeons on hand to analyze a case of cancer,
therefore the case of cancer isn’t really as bad as it originally was! I know that
this is the faith that we in the democracies live by; I am just wondering whether
the faith isn’t misplaced. Writers have made a fetish of “swimming against the
tide”; but there is also a danger of drowning. André Gide used to preach that
“the truth wounds only to cure”; but is the wounded patient always so lucky?
I doubt it.
As in certain doctor-patient relations, the result of careless and blunt truth
telling does not reinforce the will to live but induces despair. In the case of the
United States, the twentieth-century decades from “the Muckrakers” to the
Ideologists of a “sinful, evil America” brought a chronically cheerful popula-
tion to a state of such melancholy that public-opinion polls revealed that for
the first time–it deeply depressed President Jimmy Carter in 1978–the old
Yankee optimism was giving way to despairing feelings that the future would
bring nothing good at all for the children. Despite a brief burst of passing self-
confidence during the Ronald Reagan years, an unprecedented note of pessi-
mism still obtains in the national temper.
This, then, is my first question about the relations between our cultural
tradition and the spirit of the media. Is the balance right between the ethical
and philosophical commitment to maintaining (and, if you will, “improving”)
a free, changing, democratic society—and I take it that this is what our media-
makers as citizens are publicly committed to—and the actual practice of cam-
eramen, thrusting mike-in-hand interviewers, and stop-press headline writ-ers?
Put another way, is the balance right between the primary responsible civic
engagement and the traditional century-old role of the intelligentsia as a radi-
8 The Language of Journalism

cal avant-garde, the journalist as the gadfly of the state, and our media corps en
masse as a permanent, relentless oppo-sition to established institutions, to
everything that is and has ever been?
I ask the question; I am not alone in the Western world in asking for an
historic reconsideration. Dogs do bite men; and if thereafter no cases of rabies
are ever registered, as in the British Isles, then it is good reportable news. Neo-
Nazis are not always “on the march again” in Germany; and when a peaceful
constitutional order stabilized itself over five decades, as in the Bonn Repub-
lic, then it should have been registered (it was infrequently so, and then only
grudgingly), even at the expense of losing on occasion a dozen columnal
inches of reportage on Bavarian neo-Nazis or Brandenburg skinheads and
their ugly hate campaigns against “foreigners.” Not every bark and bite, grunt
and groan of an interviewed IRA terrorist or Shi’ite kidnapper contributes
something new to the public understanding.
Isn’t there some virtue in a balanced overview which corrects the distor-
tions of thousands of scraps of bad news? Not if the media is consecrated to
some specious formula of (to use the popular American phrase of the day, a
formula as mindless as it is ungrammatical) “telling it like it is.” A few facts,
sometimes even a great many, are being confounded with the whole truth.
This short-tempered impatience with established institutions, flaring up
from small irritations to large conclusions, may well be an American habit but
if fits suitably into the mood of other national alienations. In one case it
emerges as an irascible radicalism; in the other, a world-weary cynicism–as in
this dejected rhetorical question asked by an English columnist after having
viewed the traditional residence of Great Britain’s old Foreign Office, now
restored and refurbished. He noted “how the ornate Victorian decoration of
this temple to Empire had been repeatedly vandalized,” of how the interiors
had been scrubbed with pumice because the colors and gilding were deemed
vulgar. He was aghast with disbelief at how “everything was hidden behind
false ceilings and partition walls.” Could there be prospects for a national
destiny when the vandals are amongst us?
How can we rely on the inhabitants to defend Britain’s interests around the world,
when they can’t even be trusted to look after a few painted ceilings and cornices
properly? (Joe Joseph, in the Times, 14 August 1997, p. 43.)

For want of an imperial cornice all hope was lost. How defeatist can one
get?
Adversarial Culture
My second consideration follows on from what has just been said: for the
basic aspect of our modern culture, bearing upon it a relationship to the media
is that—to use the idea made famous by the late Columbia University literary
critic, Lionel Trilling—it is adversarial.
 From A. N. Whitehead to Irving Kristol 9

The notion of an “adversary culture” has become part of our common vo-
cabulary; and it is an additional factor to those which have been mentioned—
the idea of Progress; the loyalty of the ideals of “1789 and all that”; the pride
in the early martyrs of heroic liberation struggles—to explain the mood of
discontent and disaffection which colors our contemporary temperament. En-
demic to our modern culture is “nay-saying,” never “yea-saying.” If the bal-
ance of truth, dictated by moderation, dispassion, and reason, lies somewhere
in the middle, then so much the worse for the middle: it was always a “centre
that cannot hold.” The New York (and now Washington) publicist Irving Kristol
has summed up the American experience, and in citing it I feel confident that
its validity extends, mutatis mutandis, to most places in Western society (and
in other continents which have emulated certain Western patterns and habits,
such as India, Japan, etc.).

It is hardly to be denied that the culture that educates us—the patterns of perception and
thought our children absorb in their schools, at every level—is unfriendly (at the least)
to the commercial civilisation, the bourgeois civilisation, within which most of us live
and work. When we send our sons and daughters to college, we may expect that by the
time they are graduated they are likely to have a lower opinion of our social and
economic order than when they entered. We know this from opinion poll data; we
know from our own experience.
We are used to this fact of our lives, we take it so for granted, that we fail to realise
how extraordinary it is. Has there ever been, in all recorded history, a civilisation
whose culture was at odds with the values and ideals of that civilisation itself?*

It would take us too far afield to follow this argument all the way to the
explanation of the “anti-bourgeois” or anti-Establishment ideology which is
the cultural coloration of many (certainly not all) sectors of our media. But
one caution is worth making, in order to forfend any heated discussion based
on misunderstandings. It is not uncommon that a culture will be critical of the
civilization that sustains it, and always critical of the failure of this civiliza-
tion to realize perfectly the ideals that it claims as an inspiration. As Kristol
points out, “Such criticism is implicit or explicit in Aristophanes and Euripides,
in Dante and Shakespeare. But to take an adversary posture towards the ideals
them-selves? That is unprecedented.”
One need not go so far. There is an impulse in the adversary culture—and it
is this which is my concern, and not the secret advocacy of hidden new ideals
of some “alternative culture” or ideal society—which can have its stop at the
half-way station of nihilism. All social forms and human arrangements must be
unmasked; all myths demythologized; all politicians exposed (except a few,
very favorite sons, noble warriors in the common cause); and all present poli-
cies rejected for their confusions, inconsistencies, and incoherencies.
* Irving Kristol, “The Adversary Culture of Intellectuals,” Encounter (October 1979),
pp. 5-14. See also his stimulating, more recent essay on the “Counter-Cultures,”
Commentary (December 1994), pp. 35-39.
10 The Language of Journalism

One must conclude, after reading the celebrated investigative reporting of

the last few decades, that if only society were to be conducted by our intellec-
tual critics, our journalists, our crusading editors, our columnist-pundits, all
would suddenly be well—foreign policies would be thoughtful and effective,
economic programs would be scientific and realistic, arts policies would lead
to a veritable cultural renaissance. Nothing is ever seen as problematic, dif-
ficult, recalcitrant.
Implicit in radical negation is the prospect of some easy utopian solution.
“Reagan’s racism” was responsible for lingering black poverty in the U.S.A.;
how easy it would be to make the old Negro ghettos flower in humanism if
only our ethnic theories would prevail. “Kohl’s philistinism” has been respon-
sible for the dull and uninspired role of Germany in the world today; if only
our “Kulturkritik” would take power. “Thatcher’s hard-heartedness” and
“Major’s mediocrity” were responsible for the British industrial decline into
unemployment and class strife; if only our neo-Keynesian social formula of
planned growth would be adopted.
I have now, I believe, roughly summarized a hundred articles in the British
press, a thousand editorials in the German and American newspapers, and
innumerable hours of television documentaries on all the little milky screens
of the electronic world. Mind you, I am not here concerned with the politics,
Left or Right, of these matters, only with the mind-set of an adversarial culture
which dictates certain attitudes and patterns of judgment. And these are, of
course, reflected and enlarged in the customs-and-mores of our newspaper
culture. “Against” is what we must be. It’s the duty of the opposition to op-
pose.
“Sensations”: From Silent Images to Talking Pictures
The controversies over the f-word, in many of its camouflages or ortho-
graphic variants, begin of course on the semantic level–its raw, rude reality as
it is spoken or written–but remain only briefly there. The argument becomes
elevated quickly to one of good taste, or proper morality, or unseemly behav-
ior in-the-presence-of-children, or half-a-dozen other civic or ecclesiastical
grounds which emerge to justify outrage, offense, embarrassment, censorship,
or diffuse general hostility.
Rarely are the strong feelings clustered about technical standards of style
or the writing of good, effective prose. Our liberal ideology which has for so
very long attached itself to “free speech” for “the language of common men”
also guarantees that cursing and swearing become grave matters of large socio-
cultural consideration. Chaucer, Shakespeare and D. H. Lawrence (and the
likes of, say, Hubert Selby or James Kelman) have to be defended with the
moral passion of the violated human rights of Captain Dreyfus or Sacco and
Vanzetti. Unfettered expression was a great and good cause; hence the f-word
was a brave flag, and zealous bands of libertarians–quite untroubled, as in our
 Another Random Document on
Scribd Without Any Related Topics
 Cady. © 31Jan70; LP40284.
The ex-secretary. Credits: Creator & writer, Jay Sommers. Cast:
Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Elaine Joyce, Richard Deacon. ©
27Apr71; LP40243.
The four of spades. Credits: Writers Jay Sommers & John L.
Green. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester,
Frank Cady. © 8Nov69; LP40273.
The free paint job. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Frank
Cady, Alvy Moore. © 5Jan71; LP40232.
Getting even with Haney. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester & Frank Cady. © 22Mar67; LP39362.
A girl for Drobny. Credits: Writers, Dick Chevillat & Dan
Beaumont. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester, Frank Cady. © 16Feb71; LP40238.
The great mayorality [sic] campaign. Credits: Writers, Jay
Sommers & Dick Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat
Buttram, Tom Lester, Frank Cady. © 27Oct70; LP40298.
Guess who's not going to the luau? Credits: Writers, Jay
Sommers & Dick Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat
Buttram, Tom Lester, Alvy Moore. © 25Sep68; LP40244.
Hail to the fire chief. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester, Alvy Moore. © 16Oct68; LP40246.
Handy lessons. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick Chevillat.
Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Tom Lester, Alvy Moore, Mary
Grace Canfield. © 6Nov68; LP40249.
Haney's new image. Credits: Writers, Bobby Bell & Bill Lee. Cast:
Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Alvy Moore & Frank
Cady. © 29Nov67; LP39364.
Happy birthday. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick Chevillat.
Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester, Frank
Cady. © 11Apr70; LP40292.
Hawaiian honeymoon. Credits: Creator & writer, Jay Sommers.
Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, William Sylvester, Jane Connell,
Pamela Franklin. © 16Mar71; LP40242.
The high cost of loving. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester, Frank Cady. © 8Dec70; LP40303.
His honor. Credits: Writers, Dick Chevillat & Al Schwartz. Cast:
Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester & Alvy
Moore. © 11Jan67; LP39350.
Hole in the porch. Credits: Writers, Dick Chevillat & Dan
Beaumont. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester, Frank Cady. © 2Mar71; LP40240.
Home is where you run away from. Credits: Writers, Jay
Sommers & Dick Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat
Buttram, Tom Lester & Alvy Moore. © 10Jan68; LP39353.
A home isn't built in a day. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat
Buttram, Tom Lester & Frank Cady. © 30Nov66; LP39367.
The Hooterville image. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester & Alvy Moore. © 16Nov66; LP39349.
How Hooterville was floundered. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers
& Dick Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram,
Tom Lester, Alvy Moore. © 11Dec68; LP40253.
How to get from Hooterville to Pixley without moving. Credits:
Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva
Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester, Frank Cady. © 25Dec68:
LP40255.
A husband for Eleanor. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Frank
Cady, Alvy Moore. © 13Nov68; LP40250.
It's human to be humane. Credits: Writers, Sam Locke & Joel
Rapp. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Alvy Moore
& Frank Cady. © 1Feb67; LP39359.
It's so peaceful in the country, Credits: Writers, David Braverman
& Bob Marcus. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester & Alvy Moore. © 18Jan67; LP39351.
Jealousy. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick Chevillat. Cast:
Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester, Frank Cady.
© 29Sep70; LP40295.
King Oliver I. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick Chevillat.
Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram Tom Lester, Frank
Cady. © 9Feb71; LP40237.
The liberation movement. Credits: Writers, Dick Chevillat & Dan
Beaumont. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester, Frank Cady. © 15Dec70; LP40304.
Lisa bakes a cake. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester & Alvy Moore. © 26Jan66; LP39348.
Lisa, the psychologist. Credits: Writers, Dick Chevillat & Dan
Beaumont. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester, Frank Cady. © 9Mar71; LP40241.
Lisa's mudder comes for a visit. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers &
Dick Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester, Frank Cady. © 27Sep69; LP40267.
The marital vacation. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester, Alvy Moore. © 15Jan69; LP40258.
The milk maker. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick Chevillat.
Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester, Frank
Cady. © 26Mar69; LP40265.
Never start talking unless your voice comes out. Credits: Writers,
Jay Sommers & Dick Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor,
Pat Buttram, Tom Lester & Alvy Moore. © 22Feb67; LP39361.
Never trust a little old lady. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers, Dick
Chevillat & Al Schwartz. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat
Buttram, Tom Lester & Alvy Moore. © 28Dec66; LP39370.
An old fashioned Christmas. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers &
Buddy Atkinson. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram,
Tom Lester & Alvy Moore. © 21Dec66; LP39369.
Old mail day. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick Chevillat.
Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester, Alvy
Moore. © 20Nov68; LP40251.
Oliver and the cornstalk. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester, Frank Cady. © 20Dec69; LP40278.
Oliver buys a farm. Credits: Writer, Jay Sommers. Cast: Eddie
Albert & Eva Gabor. © 15Sep65; LP39347.
Oliver goes broke. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester, Frank Cady. © 20Oct70; LP40297.
Oliver's double. Credits: Writer, Dan Beaumont. Cast: Eddie
Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester, Frank Cady. ©
1Dec70; LP40302.
Oliver's jaded past. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert & Eva Gabor. © 6Mar68; LP39355.
Oliver's school girl crush. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Tom Lester, Alvy
Moore. © 29Nov69; LP40276.
One of our assemblymen is missing. Credits: Writers, Jay
Sommers & Dick Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat
Buttram, Tom Lester & Alvy Moore. © 26Oct66; LP39365.
The picnic. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick Chevillat. Cast:
Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester, Frank Cady.
© 7Mar70; LP40288.
A prize in every package. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Tom Lester, Alvy
Moore, Frank Cady. © 22Jan69; LP40259.
Ralph's nuptials. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick Chevillat.
Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester, Frank
Cady. © 13Dec69; LP40277.
The reincarceration of Eb. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat
Buttram, Tom Lester, Alvy Moore. © 2Apr69; LP40266.
Rest and relaxation. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester, Alvy Moore. © 10Jan70; LP40281.
Retreat from Washington. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester, Alvy Moore. © 19Feb69; LP40262.
The road. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & John L. Greene. Cast:
Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester, Frank Cady.
© 1Nov69; LP40272.
A royal love story. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Tom Lester, Frank
Cady, Victoria Meyerink. © 6Oct70; LP40296.
The rummage sale. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Alvy
Moore. © 2Oct68; LP40245.
The rutabaga story. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
 Lester & Alvy Moore. © 20Mar68; LP39356.
Son of Drobny. Credits: Writer, Dan Beaumont. Cast: Eddie
Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester, Frank Cady. ©
12Jan71; LP40233.
Special delivery letter. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat
Buttram, Tom Lester, Frank Cady. © 22Nov69; LP40275.
Spot remover. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester, Frank Cady. © 2Feb71; LP40236.
The spring festival. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester & Alvy Moore. © 21Feb68; LP39354.
A square is not round. Credits: Writer, Elroy Schwartz. Cast:
Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester & Alvy
Moore. © 14Dec66; LP39368.
A star named Arnold is born, pt. 1. Credits: Writers, Jay
Sommers & Dick Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat
Buttram, Tom Lester & Alvy Moore. © 3Apr68; LP39357.
A star named Arnold is born, pt. 2. Credits: Writers, Jay
Sommers & Dick Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor &
Hank Patterson. © 10Apr68; LP39358.
Star witness. Credits: Writers, Dick Chevillat & Dan Beaumont.
Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester, Frank
Cady. © 26Jan71; LP40235.
The tail of a tale. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick Chevillat.
Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Tom Lester, Frank Cady, Alvy
Moore. © 18Oct69; LP40270.
Trapped. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick Chevillat. Cast:
Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester, Frank Cady.
© 17Jan70; LP40282.
Uncle Fedor. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick Chevillat.
Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester, Alvy
 Moore. © 20Mar70; LP40290.
The wealthy landowner. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester, Alvy Moore. © 4Apr70; LP40291.
The wedding deal. Credits: Writers, Dick Chevillat & Dan
Beaumont. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester, Frank Cady. © 19Jan71; LP40234.
Where there's a will. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick
Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester, Frank Cady. © 11Oct69; LP40269.
Who's Lisa? Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick Chevillat.
Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester & Alvy
Moore. © 19Apr67; LP39363.
The wishbook. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & Dick Chevillat.
Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester, Alvy
Moore. © 3Jan70; LP40280.
You and your big shrunken head. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers
& Dick Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram,
Tom Lester, Frank Cady. © 25Oct69; LP40271.
You ought to be in pictures. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers &
Dick Chevillat. Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom
Lester & Alvy Moore. © 23Nov66; LP39366.
Youth center. Credits: Writers, Jay Sommers & John L. Greene.
Cast: Eddie Albert, Eva Gabor, Pat Buttram, Tom Lester, Frank
Cady. © 15Nov69; LP40274.

GREENER PASTURES. See

THE SMITH FAMILY.

GREETINGS FROM THE PRESIDENT. See

THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES.

GROWTH AND CONFLICT IN AMERICAN LIFE, SECTION 1-4. See

CONCEPT-CENTERED LESSONS IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

GROWTH OF AN AMERICAN CITY. See

PEOPLE AND EVENTS IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

GROWTH OF NATIONALISM AND SECTIONALISM. See

CONCEPT-CENTERED LESSONS IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

GRUN INCIDENT. See

THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES.

GRUNION INVASION. See

THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES.

GUADELOUPE AND HER ISLANDS. See

THE FRENCH WEST INDIES.

LA GUADELOUPE ET SES ILES. See

LES ANTILLES FRANCAISES.

THE GUARNERIUS CAPER. See

HAWAII FIVE-O.

GUESS WHO'S COMING TO THE WHITE HOUSE. See

NANCY. No. 2.

GUESS WHO'S NOT GOING TO THE LUAU. See

GREEN ACRES.
GUEST IN THE HOUSE. See

MY THREE SONS.

GUIDES TO DISSECTION. See

ANTERIOR TRIANGLE OF THE NECK.

THE BISECTED HEAD: NASAL CAVITY AND TONGUE.
THE CRANIAL CAVITY: REMOVAL OF THE BRAIN.
CRANIOVERTEBRAL, PREVERTEBRAL & PHARYNGEAL REGIONS.
THE EXTERNAL AND MIDDLE EAR.
THE LARYNX.
THE ORBIT FROM ABOVE.
PAROTID AND SUBMANDIBULAR REGIONS.
POSTERIOR TRIANGLE OF THE NECK.

THE GUN. See

GUNSMOKE.

GUNRUNNER. See

HAWAII FIVE-O.

GUNSMOKE. Columbia Broadcasting System. Approx. 60 min.

each, sd., color, 16 mm. © Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

The bullet, pt. 1-2. Credits: Writer, Jim Byrnes. Cast: James
Arness, Milburn Stone, Amanda Blake, Ken Curtis, Buck Taylor.
© 23Nov71, LP40136; 29Nov71, LP40137.
Captain Sligo. Credits: Producer, Leonard Katzman; writer,
William Kelley. Cast: James Arness, Milburn Stone, Ken Curtis,
Amanda Blake, Buck Taylor. © 27Dec70; LP40032.
Chato. Credits: Producer, Joseph Dackow; writer, Paul Edwards.
Cast: James Arness. © 7Sep70; LP40017.
Cleavus. Credits: Producer, Leonard Katzman; writers, Donald Z.
Koplowitz & Richard Davids Scott. Cast: James Arness, Milburn
Stone, Amanda Blake, Ken Curtis, Buck Taylor. © 8Feb71;
LP40035.
Gentry's law. Credits: Producer, Joseph Dackow; writer, Jack
Miller. Cast: James Arness, Milburn Stone, Ken Curtis. ©
5Oct70; LP40021.
The gun. Credits: Producer, Joseph Dackow; writer, Donald S.
Sanford. Cast: James Arness, Milburn Stone, Ken Curtis, Buck
Taylor, Glenn Strange. © 2Nov70; LP40025.
Jaekel. Credits: Producer, Leonard Katzman; teleplay, Calvin
Clements; story, Gerry Day & Bethel Leslie. Cast: James
Arness, Milburn Stone, Amanda Blake, Ken Curtis, Buck Taylor.
© 25Jan71; LP40033.
Jenny. Credits: Producer, Leonard Katzman; writer, Jack Miller.
Cast: James Arness, Milburn Stone, Amanda Blake, Ken Curtis,
Buck Taylor. © 21Dec70; LP40031.
Lavery. Credits: Producer, Leonard Katzman; writer, Donald S.
Sanford. Cast: James Arness, Milburn Stone, Amanda Blake,
Ken Curtis, Buck Taylor. © 15Feb71; LP40036.
Luke. Credits: Producer, Joseph Dackow; writer, Jack Miller. Cast:
James Arness, Milburn Stone, Amanda Blake, Ken Curtis, Buck
Taylor. © 25Oct70; LP40024.
McCabe. Credits: Producer, Joseph Dackow; writer, Jim Byrnes.
Cast: James Arness. © 23Nov70; LP40028.
Mirage. Credits: Producer, Leonard Katzman; writer, Jack Miller.
Cast: James Arness, Milburn Stone, Amanda Blake, Ken Curtis,
Buck Taylor. © 4Jan71 (in notice: 1970); LP40039.
Murdoch. Credits: Producer, Leonard Katzman; writer, Jack Miller.
Cast: James Arness, Milburn Stone, Amanda Blake, Ken Curtis,
Buck Taylor. © 1Feb71; LP40034.
The noonday devil. Credits: Producer, Joseph Dackow; writer,
William Kelley. Cast: James Arness. © 30Nov70; LP40029.
The noose. Credits: Producer, Joseph Dackow; writer, Arthur
Browne, Jr. Cast: James Arness, Milburn Stone, Amanda Blake,
Ken Curtis, Buck Taylor. © 14Sep70; LP40018.
Pike, pt. 1-2. Credits: Producer, Leonard Katzman; writer, Jack
Miller. Cast: James Arness, Milburn Stone, Amanda Blake, Ken
Curtis, Buck Taylor. © 22Feb71, LP40037; 1Mar71, LP40038.
Sam McTavish, M.D. Credits: Producer, Joseph Dackow; writers,
Gerry Day & Bethel Leslie. Cast: James Arness, Milburn Stone,
Amanda Blake, Ken Curtis, Buck Taylor. © 28Sep70; LP40020.
The scavengers. Credits: Producer, Joseph Dackow; writer, Jim
Byrnes. Cast: James Arness, Milburn Stone, Amanda Blake,
Ken Curtis, Buck Taylor. © 9Nov70; LP40026.
Sergeant Holly. Credits: Producer, Joseph Dackow; writer, William
Kelley. Cast: James Arness, Milburn Stone, Amanda Blake, Ken
Curtis, Buck Taylor. © 7Dec70; LP40030.
Snow train, pt. 1-2. Credits: Producer, Joseph Dackow; writer,
Preston Wood. Cast: James Arness, Milburn Stone, Ken Curtis.
© 12Oct70, LP40022; 19Oct70, LP40023.
Stark. Credits: Producer, Joseph D. Dackow; writer, Donald S.
Sanford. Cast: James Arness, Milburn Stone, Amanda Blake,
Ken Curtis, Ted Jordan. © 21Sep70; LP40019.
Tycoon. Credits: Producer, Leonard Katzman; writer, Robert
Vincent Wright. Cast: James Arness, Milburn Stone, Amanda
Blake, Ken Curtis, Glenn Strange. © 18Jan71 (in notice: 1970);
LP40040.
 The witness. Credits: Producer, Joseph Dackow; writer, Shimon
Wincelberg. Cast: James Arness, Milburn Stone, Ken Curtis,
Ted Jordan. © 16Nov70; LP40027.

THE GURU. See

THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES.

GYNECOLOGIC LAPAROSCOPY. Upjohn Co. 13 min., sd., color, 16

mm. (The Upjohn vanguard of medicine) © Upjohn Co.;
15Nov71; LP40162.
THE GYPSY'S WARNING. See

THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES.

 H
H. R. PUFNSTUF. Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions. 1 reel
each, sd., color, 35 mm. Produced with NBC-TV Network. © Sid
& Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc.

The magic road. © 14Aug69; LP39470.

HAIL TO THE FIRE CHIEF. See

GREEN ACRES.

HAMAD AND THE PIRATES: THE ISLAND OF THE THREE PALMS.

See

THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF DISNEY.

HAMAD AND THE PIRATES: THE PHANTOM DHOW. See

THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF DISNEY.

HAND CROSS-POLLINATION OF THE SOYBEAN (GLYCINE MAX)

Iowa State University. Made by Film Production Unit & Dept. of
Agronomy. 5 min., si., color, 16 mm. © Iowa State University
a.a.d.o. Iowa State University of Science & Technology; 7Oct70;
MP21833.
HANDLING MONEY. See

[TELLER TRAINING]

HANDY LESSONS. See

GREEN ACRES.

HANEY'S NEW IMAGE. See

 GREEN ACRES.

HAPPENING THAT HAPPENED IN TEXAS. See

THE RED SKELTON SHOW.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY. See

GREEN ACRES.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DEAR GASPAR. See

THE FLYING NUN.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, WANDA JUNE. Filmmakers Group, Red Lion

Productions & Sourdough. Released by Columbia Pictures. 105
min., sd., color, 35 mm. Based upon the play by Kurt Vonnegut,
Jr.

Credits: Producer, Lester M. Goldsmith; director, Mark Robson;

screenplay, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.; director of photography, Fred
Koenekamp; film editor, Dorothy Spencer.
Cast: Rod Steiger, Susannah York, George Grizzard, Don Murray,
William Hickey.
© Wanda June Co. & Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.;
9Dec71; LP40314.

HARDWARE STRUCTURES. Lesson 230. Edutronics Systems

International. 6 min., sd., color, Super 8 mm. Loop film. ©
Edutronics Systems International, Inc.; 27May71; MP21904.
HAROLD AND MAUDE. Mildred Lewis & Colin Higgins Productions.
Released by Paramount Pictures Corp. 91 min., sd., color, 35
mm.

Credits: Executive producer, Mildred Lewis; producers, Colin

Higgins & Charles B. Mulvehill; director, Hal Ashby; writer, Colin
 Higgins; music, Cat Stevens; director of photography, John A.
Alonzo; film editor, William A. Sawyer.
Cast: Ruth Gordon, Bud Cort, Vivian Pickles, Cyril Cusack,
Charles Tyner.
© Paramount Pictures Corp. & Mildred Lewis & Colin Higgins
Productions, Inc.; 13Dec71; LP40312.

THE HARRIERS. Cinema Dept. & Dept. of Health & Physical

Education of Humboldt State College. 14 min., sd., b&w, 16 mm.

Credits: Writers, Dean Munroe & David Phillips.

© David A. Phillips & Dean Munroe; 30Jun70 (in notice: 1969);
MP21781.

HAWAII CALLING. See

PETTICOAT JUNCTION.

HAWAII FIVE-O. Leonard Freeman Productions. Approx. 60 min.

each, sd., color, 16 mm. © Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

All the king's horses. Credits: Writer, William Robert Yates. ©

19Nov69; LP39692.
And a time to die. Credits: Writer, Ken Pettus. © 9Sep70;
LP39987.
Beautiful screamer. Credits: Writer, Stephen Kandel. © 25Nov70;
LP39999.
The big kahuna. Credits: Teleplay, Gil Ralston & Norman Hudis;
story, Leonard Freeman. © 12Mar69 (in notice: 1968);
LP39465.
Blind tiger. Credits: Teleplay, Jerome Coopersmith; story, William
Yates & Jerome Coopersmith. © 24Dec69; LP39697.
The bomber & Mrs. Moroney. Credits: Writers, Eric Bercovici &
Jerry Ludwig. © 16Feb71; LP39984.
Bored, she hung herself. Credits: Writer, Mel Goldberg. ©
31Dec69; LP39698.
A bullet for McGarret. Credits: Teleplay, Anthony Lawrence;
story, Jerome Coopersmith & Anthony Lawrence. © 22Oct69;
LP39688.
By the numbers. Credits: Writer, Mark Rodgers. © 5Dec68;
LP39468.
Cry, lie. Credits: Writer, Preston Wood. © 28Jan70; LP39677.
Dear enemy. Credits: Writer, Jackson Gillis. © 10Feb71;
LP39983.
Devil and Mr. Frog. Credits: Teleplay, Robert C. Dennis; story,
Robert Lewin & Robert C. Dennis. © 3Dec69; LP39694.
The double wall. Credits: Writers, Jerry Ludwig & Eric Bercovici.
© 9Dec70; LP40000.
F.o.b. Honolulu, pt. 1. Credits: Writers, Jerry Ludwig & Eric
Bercovici. © 20Jan71; LP39980.
F.o.b. Honolulu, pt. 2. Credits: Writers, Jerry Ludwig & Eric
Bercovici. © 27Jan71; LP39981.
Force of waves. Credits: Teleplay, Mark Rodgers & Eric Bercovici.
© 21Oct70; LP39997.
Forty feet high and it kills. Credits: Writer, Robert C. Dennis. ©
1Oct69; LP39686.
The Guarnerius caper. Credits: Writer, Ken Pettus. © 7Oct70;
LP39989.
The gunrunner. Credits: Writers, James D. Buchanan & Ronald
Austin. © 3Feb71; LP39982.
The joker's wild, man wild. Credits: Writer, Jack Turley. ©
10Dec69; LP39695.
Killer bee. Credits: Writer, Anthony Lawrence. © 14Jan70 (in
notice: 1969); LP39682.
King Kamehameha blues. Credits: Writer, Robert Hamner. ©
4Nov69; LP39690.
King of the hill. Credits: Story, Leonard Freeman; teleplay, John
D. F. Black. © 1Jan69 (in notice: 1968); LP39464.
Kiss the queen goodbye. Credits: Writer, Jack Turley. © 4Mar70;
LP39680.
The last Eden. Credits: Writers, Jerry Ludwig & Eric Bercovici. ©
11Nov70; LP39994.
The late John Louisiana. Credits: Story, Lionel E. Siegel, Jerry
Ludwig & Eric Bercovici. © 4Nov70; LP39995.
Leopard on the rock. Credits: Writer, Palmer Thompson. ©
26Nov69; LP39693.
Most likely to murder. Credits: Writer, Robert Hamner. © 4Feb70;
LP39678.
Nightmare road. Credits: Writer, Jack Turley. © 11Feb70;
LP39679.
Nine, ten, you're dead. Credits: Writer, Mel Goldberg. ©
23Nov71; LP40124.
One day we shall be strangers in our own land. Credits: Story,
John Kneubuhl; teleplay, John Kneubuhl & Herman Groves. ©
26Sep68; LP39466.
The one with the gun. Credits: Writer, Robert C. Dennis. ©
21Jan70 (in notice: 1969); LP39683.
Over fifty? Steal. Credits: Writer, E. Arthur Kean. © 18Nov70;
LP39993.
Paniolo. Credits: Writer, Ed Adamson. © 23Dec70; LP40001.
The payoff. Credits: Writer, Ken Pettus. © 2Dec70; LP39998.
The ransom. Credits: Writers, Eric Bercovici & Jerry Ludwig. ©
14Oct70; LP39988.
Reunion. Credits: Writer, Paul Playdon. © 28Oct70; LP39996.
Run, Johnny, run. Credits: Writer, Mel Goldberg. © 7Jan70 (in
notice: 1969); LP39681.
Savage Sunday. Credits: Writer, Palmer Thompson. © 15Oct69;
LP39687.
The second shot. Credits: Writer, Eric Bercovici. © 23Sep70;
LP39991.
The Singapore file. Credits: Writer, Robert C. Dennis. ©
12Nov69; LP39691.
Sweet terror. Credits: Writer, Robert C. Dennis. © 29Oct69;
LP39689.
Ten thousand diamonds and a heart. Credits: Writer, E. Arthur
Kean. © 1Jan71 (in notice: 1970); LP39985.
A thousand pardons--you're dead. Credits: Teleplay, Mel
Goldberg; story, Paul Harber. © 17Sep69; LP39684.
Tiger by the tail. Credits: Writer, Sy Salkowitz. © 3Oct68;
LP39467.
Time and memories. Credits: Writer, Jerry Ludwig. © 1Oct70;
LP39990.
To hell with Babe Ruth. Credits: Writer, Anthony Lawrence. ©
24Sep69; LP39685.
To kill or be killed. Credits: Writer, Anthony Lawrence. © 6Jan71
(in notice: 1970); LP39986.
Trouble in mind. Credits: Writers, Mel Goldberg & Sasha Gillien.
© 16Sep70; LP39992.
Which way did they go? Credits: Writer, Meyer Dolinsky. ©
17Dec69; LP39696.
HAWAII: VOLCANOES FROM THE SEA. See

VOLCANOES.

HAWAIIAN HONEYMOON. See

GREEN ACRES.

HE DIED WITH HIS BOOTS OFF, THAT'S WHY HE STUBBED HIS

TOE WHEN HE KICKED THE BUCKET. See

THE RED SKELTON SHOW.

HE LOVES US, HE LOVES US NOT. See

PETTICOAT JUNCTION.

HE WANTED TO BE A SQUARE SHOOTER BUT HE FOUND THAT

HIS BARREL WAS ROUND. See

THE RED SKELTON SHOW.

HEALTH SCIENCE, HE 1-13. See

TEACHING CHILDREN TO BE LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS.

HELEN KELLER AND HER TEACHER. Project 7 Productions. 27

min., sd., color, 16 mm. Produced in association with McGraw-
Hill. Appl. author: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Appl. states prev. pub.
19Aug69, MP19781. NM: revisions & additions. © Project 7
Productions & McGraw-Hill, Inc.; 25Sep70 (in notice: 1969);
MP21679.
HELP. Macmillan Co. Made by Elektra Film Productions & Boondock
Films. 1 reel, sd., color, 16 mm. (Social studies/Focus on active
learning) © Macmillan Co.; 4Jan71; MP21842.
HELP FOR AMY. Brigham Young University, Motion Picture Dept. 25
min., sd., color, 16 mm. © Brigham Young University; 10Jun71;
 LP39327.
HELPFUL MEDICINES. See

DRUGS AND YOU.

HER INDUSTRIES. See

ALASKA.

HERBERT'S BABIES. Macmillan Co. 1 reel, sd., color, 16 mm. Appl.

author: James Robertson. © Macmillan Co.; 4Jan71; MP21839.
HERE COMES ANDY. See

TO ROME WITH LOVE.

HERE COMES THE GROOM. See

NANCY. No. 8.

HERE IS MY LIFE (How God calls to a missionary vocation)

(Filmstrip) Home Mission Board. Made by Broadman Films. 67 fr.,
color, 35 mm. With manual, 1 v. © Broadman Films; 2Aug71;
A267743.
LA HERENCIA ESPANOLA. See

EL MEXICO HISPANICO.

HERITAGE OF SERVICE (Filmstrip) Boy Scouts of America. 110 fr.,

color, 35 mm. © Boy Scouts of America (in notice: Audiovisual
Service, Boy Scouts of America); 30Jun71; JP13418.
HEROES ARE BORN. See

FAMILY AFFAIR.

HE'S YOUR DOG, CHARLIE BROWN. Lee Mendelson Film

Productions & Bill Melendez Productions. 1 reel, sd., color, 35
 mm. Produced in cooperation with United Feature Syndicate. ©
United Feature Syndicate, Inc.; 14Feb68; LP39328.
HEY, HOW ABOUT RIGHT NOW? Armco Steel Corp. Made by Henry
Strauss Associates. 30 min., sd., color, 16 mm. © Armco Steel
Corp.; 18May70; MP21742.
HEY LOOK ME OVER. See

PETTICOAT JUNCTION.

HICKORY DICKORY DOCK. See

GARDEN OF DELIGHTS FOR KIDS.

HIGGINS COME HOME. See

PETTICOAT JUNCTION.

THE HIGH CHAPARRAL. Xanadu Productions. Approx. 49 min.

each, sd., color, 16 mm. Produced in association with NBC
Productions. © Xanadu Productions, Inc.

An anger greater than mine. © 27Aug70; LP39910.

The badge. © 6Nov70; LP39919.
Fiesta. © 13Nov70; LP39920.
Forge of hate. © 26Oct70; LP39918.
A good, sound profit. © 20Oct70; LP39917.
The hostage. © 4Feb71 (in notice: 1970); LP39924.
It takes a smart man. © 22Sep70; LP39913.
A man to match the land. © 28Sep70; LP39914.
A matter of survival. © 16Sep70; LP39912.
A matter of vengeance. © 13Nov70; LP39921.
The new lion of Sonora. 100 min. © 23Dec70; LP39923.
 Only the bad come to Sonora. © 18Aug70; LP39909.
The pale warrior. © 3Dec70; LP39922.
Sangre. © 8Oct70; LP39915.
Spokes. © 18Aug70; LP39908.
Too late the epitaph. © 9Oct70; LP39916.
Wind. © 28Aug70; LP39911.

HIGH COST OF LOVING. See

GREEN ACRES.

HIGHLIGHTS OF HISTORY (Filmstrip) Teaching Resources

Development Center. Distributed by Society for Visual Education.
4 filmstrips, color, 35 mm. (Singer education & training products)

Contents: T382-1--T382-4: Pyramids of Egypt. 35 fr.--The history

of transportation. 36 fr.--The history of flight. 39 fr.--The printed
word. 33 fr.
© Teaching Resources Development Center, div. The
Communicators; 31Mar71 (in notice: 1970); JP13556.

HIS HIGHNESS THE DOG. See

PETTICOAT JUNCTION.

HIS HONOR. See

GREEN ACRES.

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS. See

THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES.

HISTORIA, FUSION DE CULTURAS. See

 ESPANA.

HISTORIA Y DESARROLLO. See

EL MEXICO MODERNO.

HISTORICAL FICTION. See

LITERATURE FOR CHILDREN: AN INTRODUCTION.

HISTORY ALIVE SERIES. See

DEMOCRACY - EQUALITY OR PRIVILEGE.

IMPEACHMENT OF A PRESIDENT.
THE RIGHT OF DISSENT.
THE RIGHT OF PETITION.
STATES RIGHTS.

HISTORY OF FLIGHT. See

HIGHLIGHTS OF HISTORY.

HISTORY OF MAN. See

THE AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION: MAN AS FOOD PRODUCER.

DESPITE MAN'S DIFFERENCES.
EUROPEAN EXPANSION: ITS INFLUENCE ON MAN.
HOW MAN ADAPTS TO HIS PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT.
HOW MAN DISCOVERS HIS PAST.
MAN AND THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
MAN AND THE RISE OF CIVILIZATION.
MAN AND THE SECOND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
 MAN AS HUNTER AND FOOD GATHERER.

HISTORY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. Pt. 1-2. Atlantis

Productions. 2 motion pictures, sd., color, 16 mm.

Contents: From prehistoric times to the founding of Los Angeles.

16 min.--The rise and fall of the Spanish and Mexican
influence. 18 min.
Appl. author: J. Michael Hagopian.
© Atlantis Productions., Inc.; 11Nov66; MP21762-21763.

HISTORY OF TRANSPORTATION. See

HIGHLIGHTS OF HISTORY.

HOE DOWN A GO GO. See

THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES.

HOLE IN THE PORCH. See

GREEN ACRES.

HOLOGRAPHIC OPTICAL MEMORY. Bell Telephone Laboratories. 14

min., sd., color, 16 mm. © Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc.;
15Sep70; MP21946.
HOME IS WHERE YOU RUN AWAY FROM. See

GREEN ACRES.

A HOME ISN'T BUILT IN A DAY. See

GREEN ACRES,

HONDO. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Television. Approx. 60 min. each,

sd., color, 16 mm. Presented in association with Batjac
 Productions & Fenady Associates. © Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.

Hondo and the Apache trail. Credits: Producer, Andrew J.

Fenady; writer, William Froug. © 31Dec67; LP39236.
Hondo and the gladiators. Credits: Producer, Andrew J. Fenady;
writer, Turnley Walker. © 15Dec67; LP39234.
Hondo and the rebel hat. Credits: Producer, Andrew J. Fenady;
writer, Max Hodge. © 29Dec67; LP39235.

THE HONEYMOON. See

MY THREE SONS.

HONEYMOON FOR TWELVE. See

NANCY. No. 9.

THE HONEYMOON IS OVER. See

MY THREE SONS.
PETTICOAT JUNCTION.

HONKY. Jack H. Harris Enterprises. 89 min., sd., color, 35 mm.

Panavision. A Getty-Fromkess & Stonehenge production. From
the novel by Gunard Solberg.

Cast: Brenda Sykes, John Neilson, William Marshall, Amentha

Dymally, John Lasell.
© Getty & Fromkess Pictures Corp.; 20May71; LP39940.

HOOTERVILLE.

For titles beginning with Hooterville See:

GREEN ACRES.
PETTICOAT JUNCTION.
HOPIS: GUARDIANS OF THE LAND. FilmFair Communications.
Distributed by Trend Films. 10 min., sd., color, 16 mm. Appl. ti.:
Hopi: Guardian of the land. © FilmFair, Inc.; 30Oct71; MP22057.
HORSE ON YOU, MR. BEDLOE. See

PETTICOAT JUNCTION.

HORSE? WHAT HORSE. See

GREEN ACRES.

THE HORSEMEN. John Frankenheimer Productions & Edward Lewis

Productions. Released by Columbia Pictures Industries. 120 min.,
sd., color, 35 mm. Panavision. Based upon the novel by Joseph
Kessell. Produced with the cooperation of Afghan Films.

Credits: Producer, Edward Lewis; director, John Frankenheimer;

screenplay, Dalton Trumbo; music composer & conductor,
Georges Delerue; director of photography, Claude Renoir;
editor, Harold F. Kress.
Cast: Omar Sharif, Leigh Taylor-Young, Jack Palance, Peter
Jeffrey, Srinanda De.
© Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.; 1Jun71 (in notice: 1970);
LP39193.

HOSTAGE. See

THE HIGH CHAPARRAL.

HOT CREEK RANCH, CALIFORNIA. Gregory Peters. 22 min., sd.,

color, 16 mm. (The compleat angler) © Gregory Peters;
17Nov71; MU8380.
HOT DOG. Lee Mendelson-Frank Buxton Joint Film Productions.
Approx. 28 min. each, sd., color, 16 mm. © Lee Mendelson-Frank
Buxton Joint Film Productions.
 Series no.
11. Baseball gloves. Cast: Woody Allen, Jonathan Winters, Jo
Anne Worley, Bernie Gunther. © 28Nov70; MP21748.

HOT ROD TRUCK. See

THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES.

HOT SPELL. See

THE FLYING NUN.

HOT, WARM, COLD. Macmillan Co. Made by Elektra Film

Productions & Boondock Films. 1 reel, sd., color, 16 mm. (Social
studies/Focus on active learning) © Macmillan Co.; 1Feb71:
MP21841.
HOUSE DIVIDED. See

CBS NEWS SPECIAL.

PETTICOAT JUNCTION.

HOUSE IS NOT A ZOO. See

THE PHYLLIS DILLER SHOW.

HOUSE PARTY. See

THE PHYLLIS DILLER SHOW.

THE PRUITTS OF SOUTHAMPTON.

THE HOUSEKEEPER. See

THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES.

HOUSTON, TEXAS. See

 FRIENDS. Episode no. 8.

HOW ARE LEADERS ELECTED. See

CITY GOVERNMENT.

HOW BUGGED WAS MY VALLEY. See

PETTICOAT JUNCTION.

HOW DO THEY MOVE? Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational Corp.

6 min., sd., color, 16 mm. (Wonder walks) © Encyclopaedia
Britannica Educational Corp.; 2Aug71; MP22031.
HOW DO YOU DECIDE? (Filmstrip) Educational Research Council
of America. Made by Multimedia Development Center. 2 filmstrips
in 1 roll, color, 35 mm.

Contents: Finders keepers. 36 fr.--No one around. 35 fr.

Credits: Writer, Alex Campbell.
© Educational Research Council of America; 28Dec71; JP13565.

HOW DO YOU DECIDE? (Filmstrip) Educational Research Council

of America. Made by Multimedia Development Center. 2 filmstrips
in 1 roll, color, 35 mm.

Contents: Not enough. 35 fr.--The test. 29 fr.

Credits: Writer, Alex Campbell.
© Educational Research Council of America; 28Dec71; JP13563.

HOW DO YOU DECIDE? Overheard (Filmstrip) Educational

Research Council of America. Made by Multimedia Development
Center. 35 fr., color, 35 mm.

Credits: Writer, Alex Campbell.

© Educational Research Council of America; 28Dec71; JP13564.
HOW DO YOU FEEL? FilmFair Communications. Distributed by
Trend Films. 10 min., sd., color, 16 mm. © FilmFair, Inc.;
30Aug71; MP21996.
HOW DOES IT WORK? See

CITY GOVERNMENT.
SPEAKING OF LANGUAGE.

HOW DOES THE CITY PROTECT PEOPLE? See

CITY GOVERNMENT.

HOW DOES THE CITY SERVE PEOPLE? See

CITY GOVERNMENT.

HOW ELECTRICITY WORKS (Filmstrip) Harris-Tuchman

Productions. 96 fr., color, 35 mm. (Your partnership with power)

Appl. author: Fran Harris Tuchman.

© Harris-Tuchman Production[s], Inc.; 1Oct71; JP13433.

HOW GOD CALLS TO A MISSIONARY VOCATION. See

HERE IS MY LIFE.

HOW HOOTERVILLE WAS FLOUNDERED. See

GREEN ACRES.

HOW MAN ADAPTS TO HIS PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT. McGraw-Hill

Films. Made by American Broadcasting Co. Merchandising, Jules
Power International Productions & McGraw-Hill. 20 min., sd.,
color, 16 mm. (History of man) Appl. author: McGraw-Hill Book
Co. © American Broadcasting Co. Merchandising, Inc.: McGraw-
Hill, Inc.; 3Nov70; MP21701.
HOW MAN DISCOVERS HIS PAST. McGraw-Hill Films. Made by
American Broadcasting Co. Merchandising, Jules Power
International Productions & McGraw-Hill. 20 min., sd., color, 16
mm. (History of man) Appl. author: McGraw-Hill Book Co. ©
American Broadcasting Co. Merchandising, Inc. & McGraw-Hill,
Inc.: 3Nov70; MP21702.
HOW MUCH TIME. Macmillan Educational Services. 1 reel, sd.,
color, 16 mm. (Decisions: A school health education program) ©
Macmillan Educational Services, Inc.; 7Dec70; MP21955.
HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
Television. 30 min., sd., color, 16 mm.

Credits: Producers, Chuck Jones & Ted Geisel; narrator, Boris

Karloff.
© Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.; 17Dec67 (in notice: 1966);
LP39856.

HOW TO ADVANCE YOUR HUSBAND'S CAREER. See

ASK YOURSELF.
THE PARTNERSHIP.

HOW TO BE A SPANISH GRANDMOTHER. See

THE FLYING NUN.

HOW TO BE A TOOTH-KEEPER. Educational Communications Co.

Made by Piccadilly Films International Co. 12 min., sd., color, 16
mm. © Piccadilly Films International Co., Ltd.; 23Sep71;
MP22070.
HOW TO BECOME FINANCIALLY INDEPENDENT (Filmstrip)
Institute of Motivation Research. 91 fr., color, 35 mm. © Institute
of Motivation Research, Inc.; 2Jun71; JP13244.