Dalrymple 1

THE ARMY-MCCARTHY HEARING: ANALYZING ATTITUDES IN FRONT-PAGE

ARTICLES FROM THE ​NEW YORK TIMES​ AND ​WASHINGTON POST

Katie Dalrymple

HNR 246: Press and Politics During the Cold War

May 12, 2020

 Dalrymple 2

Introduction

Between 1950 and 1954, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy emerged as the face of

America’s anti-Soviet agenda, countering the spread of communism in the U.S. From his Senate

chair, McCarthy led a four-year “reign of terror” while permeating an intense fear of sedition

throughout the country (McNamara 2005, 85). Mass media and national coverage is inseparable

of both the rise and fall of McCarthy’s senatorial antics, as his “greatest successes took place

within... the cultural media” (Horowitz 1996, 102). McCarthy’s face was at the center of the

political circus, which culminated in the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearing.

The three-month hearing investigated an accusation by the U.S. Army that Roy Cohn, the

lawyer of McCarthy’s committee, had forced the military to give a former McCarthy aide

preferential treatment while serving. This particular trial is largely considered McCarthy’s last

senatorial act; public opinion increasingly disfavored him and he was censured just months later.

Though McCarthy’s relationship to the media is consistently analyzed, little scholarship focuses

on the real-time press coverage of the Army trial. Existing scholarship, as the following literature

review demonstrates, tends to emphasize McCarthy’s manipulation of, and condemnation by, the

press, as well as the impact of television coverage on the senator’s career. In contrast, this

research plans to specifically analyze newspaper coverage of the Army-McCarthy hearing in

hopes of gaining insight on potential changes in media depiction and public opinion of McCarthy

throughout the duration of the trial.

 Dalrymple 3

Review of Relevant Scholarship

While there is much debate over Senator McCarthy’s controversial career, scholars

appear to reach a consensus that McCarthy intentionally and skillfully manipulated the press to

his advantage. Author Edwin R. Bayley (1981) noted that the senator quickly realized that

charged rhetoric and sensationalized claims “took precedence over yesterday’s news” (41).

Similarly, Rodger Streitmatter (2016) argued that though McCarthy’s unsubstantiated claims

were riddled with inconsistencies, journalists on deadline used his accusations as front-page

material sure to ensnare readers (131-2). While other factors of the Cold War climate contributed

to McCarthy’s assumption of power, “the single most important element was his ability to

manipulate the press” (Streitmatter 2016, 135). The researcher hopes to analyze if this sentiment

still held true between April and June of the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearing, or if major

newspapers had bolstered themselves from this sort of manipulation.

Scholars concede that McCarthy effectively harnessed the power of newspapers and their

research consistently recognizes that publications and journalists who criticized him were subject

to direct assault. In the middle of speeches, the senator was known to directly address– and

casually accuse– members of the “left-wing” press of harboring communist sympathies (Bayley

1981, 126). Though a dubious tactic, Bayley acknowledged McCarthy’s strategy of specifically

targeting papers that condemned his actions (126). One such victim, ​New York Post​ editor James

A. Wechsler, found himself an ardent enemy and critic of McCarthy. Though Wechsler had

admitted to previous involvement with communist organizations, he was decidedly

anticommunist by the time of his 1953 hearing by McCarthy (Cecil 2011, 276). Scholar Matthew

Cecil (2011) argued:

 Dalrymple 4

It was Wechsler’s past, combined with his criticism of McCarthy, that made him a target
for the senator’s anticommunist crusade but it was Wechsler’s strident anticommunist
stance as a journalist and editor that exposed McCarthy’s real goal in taking on Wechsler.
McCarthy attacked a vocal press critic like Wechsler to silence other journalists who
might editorialize against the tactics of his anticommunist crusade. (276)

Though McCarthy directly targeted publications that challenged his allegations, scholars

also recognize the members of the Fourth Estate who were willing to actively criticize his brazen

tactics. Wechsler was not the only editor to challenge McCarthy; ​Atlanta Constitution​’s Ralph

McGill is another example of disdain for McCarthy’s committee. Scholar Karen S. Miller (1996)

argues that McGill’s simultaneous anti-McCarthy and anticommunist attitudes were indicative of

public opinion in the region (319). Though the South is generally considered more conservative,

Southern Americans were “less supportive of McCarthy than other regions of the United States”

(319). Just as American papers criticized McCarthy, historian Frank Spence (2018) analyzed the

ways in which Soviet papers portrayed the senator as a caricature of capitalism’s flaws. Press in

the U.S.S.R. was highly censored, but their depiction of McCarthyism strategically, albeit

ironically, enforced the Soviet agenda. McCarthy’s senatorial tirades were presented as

weaponizing fear and the “suppression of freedom of expression” (Spence 2018, 65). In an effort

to make Soviet life appear much better than life in the U.S., Soviet papers went so far as to

compare McCarthy to Nazis and describe him as the beneficiary of Hitler (66). Though critical

for different reasons, the Soviet Union’s use of McCarthy as propaganda demonstrates that

though the senator used the press, newspapers from around the world often retaliated. The

proposed research seeks to analyze coverage throughout the trial, which could potentially

demonstrate a growing level of this defiance, rather than the aforementioned undertones of

manipulation.
 Dalrymple 5

As media coverage increasingly denounced McCarthy’s methods, scholarship seems to

recognize common themes among critical press portrayal. Among the Soviet papers Spence

(2018) analyzed, coverage could be categorized as either supportive of McCarthy’s targets of

accusation or a direct condemnation of the senator as a brutal villain (68). Put simply, such

papers either championed McCarthy’s victims or directly criticized the senator. Although

specifically analyzing Edward R. Murrow’s broadcasts on ​See It Now ​regarding McCarthy,

Streitmatter (2016) defined similar commonalities, noting that the broadcasts evolved from

“defending the little guy,” (137) to “attacking the big guy” (139). As journalism became

increasingly critical of McCarthy, scholarship suggests that coverage of the senator can be

classified as supportive of victims or condemning McCarthy. The researcher intends to code for

evidence of these two distinct themes when analyzing front page stories across the span of the

trial.

Divergence in the field arises concerning the degree to which the media contributed to

McCarthy’s downfall. Though print coverage of McCarthy continued throughout the hearing,

live television coverage became an unprecedented component of reporting, adding a visual layer

to McCarthy’s abusive strategy. One theory from existing scholarship reasons that McCarthy’s

physical appearance and mannerisms were a detriment to his cause. People across the country

turned on their television sets to see a ghastly unattractive, “bad-mannered man” berating a

young officer (Gauger 2005, 683). Some scholars like Streitmatter (2016) argue that “thanks to

the TV cameras,” broadcasts of the Army-McCarthy hearing finally toppled the senator (145).

Bayley (1981) concurred that while McCarthy took advantage of the press, “in the end, the press

‘used’ him” (217).

 Dalrymple 6

While the live broadcasts undoubtedly expanded media coverage of McCarthy’s antics,

historians like Michael Gauger (2005) argue that the television coverage of the Army-McCarthy

hearings itself played a minimal role in public opinion of the senator. Gauger’s reasoning finds

its basis in television ratings, which reveal that only the two weakest networks of the time (ABC

and DuMont) broadcasted the hearing in its entirety and received relatively low viewership,

therefore offering little reason that the broadcasts significantly impacted public opinion (680).

However, some scholars recognize other broadcasts as the nail in the coffin for McCarthy’s

committee.

Streitmatter in particular credits Murrow’s ​See it Now p​ rograms, “The Case of Milo

Radulovich, A0589839” and “A Report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy” with significantly

damaging McCarthy’s cause (Streitmatter 139). Airing in the months before the hearings, both

broadcasts received overwhelmingly positive responses from viewers and mass media, largely

discrediting McCarthy. Streitmatter maintains that some historians consider the latter program as

“the single most important broadcast in television history,” (141). From this position, it was not

the live trial broadcasts, but Murrow's exposé, that allowed television to damage the senator’s

reputation.

It is debated the extent to which press, both print and television, affected Senator Joseph

McCarthy, but clearly media coverage cannot be completely severed from his four-year tirade in

the U.S. Senate. Though existing scholarship explores McCarthy’s relationship with the press, it

appears that little has been done to analyze the evolution of newspaper coverage during the 1954

Army-McCarthy hearings in particular. As the culminating trial of McCarthy’s career, a

thorough analysis of press coverage from the duration of the trial could offer insight not only into
 Dalrymple 7

the evolution of the media’s portrayal of McCarthy, but larger public opinion as a whole. The

proposed research could serve as a small-scale study of the progression of media coverage and

public opinion in relation to McCarthy’s controversial tactics.

Methods

This research will be a qualitative analysis of front page stories during the

Army-McCarthy hearing. Seeing as the hearing lasted from April 22 to June 17, it is appropriate

to include a week before and after so as to account for preview coverage or follow-up stories

regarding the trial, McCarthy, or those he accused. Based on the 1954 calendar, this means front

pages between April 15 and June 23 will be considered. The front pages of two specific papers

will be analyzed: The ​New York Times​ and ​Washington Post,​ using the ProQuest database. 1954

Census information indicates that New York was the most populous city in America, making ​The

Times​ a publication that would reach the highest number of readers, aside from it being

considered the nation’s paper of record (US Census Bureau, “Statistical Abstract”). Though the

District of Columbia was not among the top three most populous cities, given its geographical

location, ​The Post l​ ikely carried print coverage of the hearing and is a logical publication to

analyze. If indeed these publications put McCarthy content on their front pages, the headlines

and first two paragraphs will be coded. Headlines often contain keywords, whereas the first two

paragraphs– the lede and nut graph– prioritize the most pertinent information and form a

summary of the article.

 Dalrymple 8

Considering this ten-week window, one day from each week must be selected for close

analysis. To ensure a random selection of days every week, they will be chosen by a random

number generator corresponding to numbered days. The hearing began on a Thursday, so one

week will be counted as Thursday through the following Wednesday. Days of the week will be

numbered: Thursday being 1, Friday 2, and so on. For example, if the coder was to look at Week

One (April 15-21) and randomly generate the number four, the front pages from Sunday, April

18 would be coded for both publications.

After selecting the day of the week to analyze, the front page from both publications will

be coded, totaling two sample pages per week. Looking at two front pages for each week over

the ten-week period will total 20 samples of newspaper coverage to analyze. A hypothetical

sample of 20 stories should be substantial enough to indicate common themes or trends in

newspaper depiction of the hearings as they progressed.

As far as coding, qualitative analysis will be required to look for three potential themes.

Based on the themes discovered and explored by Spence (2018), newspaper coverage of

McCarthy can likely be categorized as either support for his victims and the targets of

accusations, or condemn the senator as oppressive and controlling (68). To borrow the words of

Streitmatter (2016), these stories will likely be presented as “defending the little guy” (137) or

“attacking the big guy” (139). The former may include loaded diction like ​persecute,​

incriminate​, or ​assassinate,​ where the latter may be presented with words like ​demagogue​,

reckless,​ or ​cruel–​ all words documented as descriptions of McCarthy or his victims. The

researcher must use best judgement to determine which phrases align with either theme.
 Dalrymple 9

While the researcher anticipates the overwhelming majority of stories will fall into these

two major themes, an objective angle is possible and must be considered as a third option. Rather

than an editorial or opinionated coverage that the aforementioned themes suggest, some front

page stories may simply provide information about the time or events of the hearing in an

unbiased manner, and should be considered as a separate theme altogether. Such stories may

inform readers of what networks will air live broadcasts of the hearings, or simply explain

circumstances without obvious bias. If neutral diction or summary stories are presented that do

not appear to side with either McCarthy or those being tried, they will be coded as such.

Results

Objectivity

Consistent with ethical journalism, even the most charged diction from the 20 headlines

relied on direct quotes and facts. Though the articles avoided the bias of an op-ed format, few

appeared to clearly align with objective perspectives or typical summary pieces. The best

example of a completely objective front-page story was the very first to be analyzed, Monday,

April 18, from the ​New York Times​. Though this tone did not carry through the rest of the

ten-week period, it demonstrates objectivity from headline to nut graph:

 Dalrymple 10

A simple description of proceedings and key players make this sample the standard for summary

pieces. A similarly grounded ​Times ​piece from Wednesday, May 19, reads:

WASHINGTON, May 18– Bipartisan demands were voiced today for the assumption and
prompt completion of the public hearings on the controversy between the Army and
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. A White House spokesman indicated there was no present
plan to modify the Presidential secrecy directive that resulted yesterday in an abrupt
recess until next Monday of the inquiry by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations.

With the exception of these two stories, most of the articles interspersed objective fact with

pro-victim or anti-McCarthy sentiments. Additionally, almost every article could be coded for

some amount of objective diction, most often when reporting the day’s most interesting or

significant developments. It appears that as the hearing progressed, diction increasingly strayed

from summary reporting. The remaining sentences coded for the objectivity lens tended to

appear in the lede, though there were exceptions. While headlines appeared more likely to
 Dalrymple 11

contain either pro-victim or anti-McCarthy diction, ledes seemed to maintain some level of

objectivity. Perhaps this is due to the informative nature of ledes, which must indicate the who,

what, when, where, and why of a story before it can present an argument. Three of the following

examples occured as ledes, but all demonstrate the word choice coded as objective.

Robert T. Stevens made this admission in the course of a long and vigorous
cross-examination by Ray H. Jenkins of Knoxville, who is special counsel for the
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. The Senate group is investigating charges
and countercharges between Army officials and the Wisconsin Republican Senator, and
today the hearings went into their third day. (​New York Times, April 27)​

Democrats and Republicans clashed today in a wordy legalistic duel over the best means
to get the Army's monitored telephone calls into the public record of its controversy with
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. (​New York Times, May 22)

McCarthy again demanded that the Senate Investigations Subcommittee subpoena Clark
M. Clifford, legal advisor to former President Harry Truman, to testify. ​(Washington
Post, June 8)

A Republican plan was finally pushed through last night to end the Army-McCarthy
hearings, possibly next week. ​(Washington Post, June 11)

The amount of words coded as objective varied across the ten-week period, perhaps because

readers would have generally understood the inquiry as time went on, only needing background

information regarding witnesses or federal officials with which they may be unfamiliar.

Regardless, objectivity cannot be summarized in a specific trend, as such phrases appeared

across the 20 articles in varying degrees.

Support for Victims

Perhaps the most underrepresented category, diction conveying support for the Army or

those forced to confront McCarthy was sporadic. Again, there is only one article that totally

aligns itself in support of those whom the senator accused. A May 19 article from the ​Post

indicates President Eisenhower’s apparent sympathies:

 Dalrymple 12

Though not the explicit opinions of a Post reporter, the article covers an Eisenhower

speech and his apparent siding with the Army. Eisenhower was outwardly critical of McCarthy

and his tactics, therefore these paragraphs can be coded as support for the senator’s victims.

There is arguably no supporter more influential than the sitting President of the United States.

Most often, phrases supporting victims appeared in headlines, though such sentiments

were intermittent and inconsistent. By coding individual sentences, not articles or even

paragraphs collectively, the researcher observed that pro-victim diction was often in the same

article as anti-McCarthy phrasing. Seldom were articles coded as demonstrating strictly

pro-victim diction. Of the eight separate articles coded as containing diction supportive of

victims, five included anti-McCarthy ideals within the same paragraphs. The following excerpts

chronologically identify the types of phrases coded for the category of supporting victims:

Seeking curb on M’Carthy to end bad publicity for Army... ​(New York Times, April 27)
 Dalrymple 13

There is an implication… that the Army might have been able to “buy off” the Senator’s
investigation… which it refused to do. ​(Washington Post, April 27)

Both Ferguson and McClellan want to “develop the facts” despite secrecy order. ​(New
York Times, May 19)

Monitored calls stir new dispute in M’Carthy case: Democrats would reveal all or none–
Republicans try to limit the disclosures. ​(New York Times, May 22)

Symington is adamant: refuses McCarthy’s demand he step down and testify. ​(New York
Times, June 8)

Democrat warns against “anarchy.”​(Washington Post, June 8)

Democrats protested that this would prevent bringing out “the whole story.” ​(Washington
Post, June 11)

A seemingly underrepresented category of sentiment, phrasing that offered support and solidarity

towards McCarthy’s victims appeared in an unpredictable pattern. The researcher had anticipated

more content that conveyed its siding with McCarthy’s victims. Aside from the story of

Eisenhower offering his endorsement for the Army, the majority of stories interlaced pro-victim

and Anti-McCarthy diction in the same article.

Anti-McCarthy

As expected, the most frequent category was language coded as anti-McCarthy

sentiments. The senator’s name was mentioned in all 20 headlines analyzed over the ten-week

period. The senator’s last name would have certainly added context to any complex or unfamiliar

headlines, but his constant presence on the front pages of major publications implies a

sensational aspect to the proceedings. While the articles analyzed began with predominantly

objective language, they quickly transitioned to words coded as anti-McCarthy sentiments. The
 Dalrymple 14

researcher anticipated a stronger presence of articles like the following from the ​Washington

Post​ on June 21, though the single story is certainly condemning:

Though not all of the analyzed stories were as directly incriminating of McCarthy and his tactics,

sixteen of the articles examined contained some amount of diction coded as anti-McCarthy

sentiments. Some phrases appeared to be objective sentences, but implied undertones of criticism

directed towards McCarthy, and were therefore coded as such. Specifically, the May 2 article

from the ​Washington Post​ suggests that, as other critics consistently asserted, McCarthy tended

to make convoluted and unsubstantiated digressions during hearings:

[Sen. Karl E. Mundt] may restate the issues in the angry controversy in an effort to keep
questioning to the point.
 Dalrymple 15

This excerpt was coded as critical of McCarthy because of its subliminal reference to the

senator’s unconventional trial proceedings. In addition to the ​Post’s J​ une 21 article, the

following anti-McCarthy diction was coded for its connotation:

M’Carthy denies pleas for Schine 2 swear he made… [he] swore under oath today that he
never had asked anyone in the Army to grant a direct commission to Pvt. G. David
Schine. (​New York Times, June 11)

Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy (R-Wis.) denied sworn Army charges of “improper pressure.”
(Washington Post, June 11)

On this particular day, both papers published similar articles regarding McCarthy’s testimony.

While they could be considered objective reports of critical events, they imply that someone

committed perjury on the stand because contradictory statements by the Army and McCarthy

were made under oath. The ​Times’​ article uses numbers to convey McCarthy’s perceived

dishonesty, noting that two others testified about his request for Schine’s special treatment. This

two-against-one implication does not outwardly accuse McCarthy of perjury, but implies some

level of dishonesty amongst the parties. The ​Post​ instead emphasizes the two men’s positions,

the mention of their Army standing suggests another sort of credibility in contrast to McCarthy’s

testimony. For these reasons, the aforementioned excerpts were coded as critical of McCarthy.

The last four days, or eight articles, were particularly laden with phrasing that aligned

with anti-McCarthy sentiments. The language from these articles were more direct, becoming

increasingly critical of the senator towards the end of the trial. Perhaps this occurred because

initial coverage summarized trial logistics, while subsequent stories increasingly detailed

accusations and outbursts made in the courtroom. Or perhaps public opinion had finally made up

its mind about the senator. Whatever the reason, the following excerpts are further examples of

those coded as disapproving of McCarthy’s actions and statements:

 Dalrymple 16

Senator Joseph R. McCarthy's threat to reclaim his place on the committee investigating
his dispute with the Army is not “practical,” in the opinion of Senator Karl E. Mundt.
(New York Times, May 2)

Pleas for Schine Laced by Threats, Stevens Testifies… McCarthy and his key aides had
mixed, in the same conversations, repeated requests for favored treatment for Pvt. G.
David Schine with “threats.” ​(New York Times, May 8)

Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (R-Wis.) yesterday appeared to be seeking a way out of the
showdown he threatened with the Administration over the release of loyalty files.
(Washington Post, May 8)

Harold E. Stassen yesterday charges that Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy (R-Wis.) told a
“legion of falsehoods” and knew he was doing so… [he] denounced the McCarthy speech
soon after it was delivered as having been “fantastic, unbelievable, and untrue.”
(Washington Post, May 22)

Senator Joseph R. McCarthy today dared the Eisenhower Administration to indict him for
admittedly receiving from Government employees secret information in violation of
Presidential directives. Speaking directly to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations and to millions watching the inquiry on television, the Wisconsin
Republican publicly invited his informers to continue to supply him with classified
information and documents. ​(New York Times, May 28)

Ignore White House, McCarthy Advises… Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (R-Wis.) went
over the head of the President yesterday to tell all Federal workers it is “their duty” to
ignore White House orders and supply all information they have. ​(Washington Post, May
28)

Conclusion

This research utilized primary sources of front-page articles from 1954 ​New York Times

and ​Washington Post e​ ditions to code their references of Senator Joseph McCarthy during the

Army-McCarthy inquiry. Diction was analyzed for objective, pro-victim, and anti-McCarthy

attitudes. All of these themes occurred simultaneously across all 20 articles in varying degrees.

Because articles were randomly selected over the ten-week period, and McCarthy content

appeared on every day chosen, it can be assumed that reports on McCarthy developments

garnered a significant amount of attention from the national press. On several occasions, one or
 Dalrymple 17

both publications printed multiple McCarthy-related stories, sometimes publishing as many as

three different articles on a front page. Though there was no shortage of articles covering

McCarthy, the two publications typically varied in the story topics or diction used. However, as

the trial progressed and neared its conclusion, the ​Post​ and ​Times b​ ecame increasingly similar in

terms of coding. By mid-May, most headlines and initial paragraphs demonstrated

anti-McCarthy sentiments.

Though elements of the hearing were sensationalized and amplified by national media,

the articles sampled can serve as an indicator of the growing disdain for McCarthy and his

methods. The headlines seemed to parallel public opinion, soon culminating in the senator’s

censure and a fall from grace shortly after the hearings. This small-scale study of front-page

articles during the period of the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearing indicate a nuanced, but calculable

depiction of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s anti-communsim agenda.

Introduction/background = 5 / 5
Lit review = 15 / 15
Methodology = 10 / 10
Results/discussion/conclusion = 48 / 50
Writing/grammar/style = 15 / 15
Bibliography = 5 / 5
TOTAL = 98 / 100 ( A )

Really good work overall, well written with a well explained method. If
you were to tweak, I'd suggest perhaps a few less block quotes from
the stories and a little more analysis of when the shift toward more
criticism toward McCarthy happened (was there a turning point), and
was there an "elite" criticism that media seemed to see as more
persuasive. At minimum, I think this should definitely be presented at
SURF next year. - makemson
 Dalrymple 18

Bibliography

Bayley, Edwin R. 1981. ​Joe Mccarthy and the Press.​ Madison, United States: University of

Wisconsin Press.

http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/elon-ebooks/detail.action?docID=3445181.

Bryman, Alan. 2012. “Social Research Methods, 4th Edition.” In ​Social Research Methods,​ 4th

Edition, 288–308. Oxford University Press.

https://www.academia.edu/35174091/Alan_Bryman_Social_Research_Methods_4th_Edit

ion_Oxford_University_Press_2012_.

Bureau, US Census. n.d. “Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1954.” The United States

Census Bureau. Accessed March 11, 2020.

https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1954/compendia/statab/75ed.html.

Cecil, Matthew. 2011. “The Path to Madness: McCarthyism and New York Post Editor James A.

Wechsler’s Campaign to Defend Press Freedom.” ​Journal of Communication Inquiry​ 35

(3): 275–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859911411298.

Chadwich, John. 1954. “Mundt Plans To ‘Restate’ Hearing Issue: Mundt May ‘Restate’ Issues in

Hearing.” ​The Washington Post and Times Herald (1954-1959); Washington, D.C.,​ May

2, 1954.

Doherty, Thomas. 2005. ​Cold War, Cool Medium: Television, McCarthyism, and American

Culture​. Columbia University Press.

Folliard, Edward T. 1954. “Ike Shows He Is Still For Stevens: Attitude Toward Army-McCarthy

Row Revealed in Speech At Charlotte, N.C. Ike Shows He Backs Stevens.” ​The

Washington Post and Times Herald (1954-1959); Washington, D.C.,​ May 19, 1954.
 Dalrymple 19

Gauger, Michael. 2005. “Flickering Images: Live Television Coverage and Viewership of the

Army—McCarthy Hearings.” ​The Historian​ 67 (4): 678–93.

Horowitz, Irving Louis. 1996. “Culture, Politics, and McCarthyism.” ​The Independent Review​ 1

(1): 101–10.

Lawrence, W. H. 1954a. “MONITORED CALLS STIR NEW DISPUTE IN M’CARTHY

CASE: Democrats Would Reveal All or None -- Republicans Try to Limit the

Disclosures GILLETTE WARNS SENATE Says on the Floor That Panel Has Violated

Men’s Rights and Chamber Must Act Army’s Monitored Phone Call Stir Dispute in

McCarthy Case.” ​New York Times,​ 1954.

———. 1954b. “PLEAS FOR SCHINE LACED BY THREATS, STEVENS TESTIFIES: Phone

Calls Mingled Them, He Tells Jenkins, Who Brings Army Case to Sharp Focus

OFFICIAL DENIES ‘BANTER’ Mundt Asserts Subcommittee Hit a ‘Security

Roadblock’ on Monitored Conversations STEVENS TESTIFIES ON SCHINE PLEAS.”

New York Times​, 1954.

———. 1954c. “STEVENS CONCEDES SEEKING CURB ON M’CARTHY TO END BAD

PUBLICITY FOR ARMY: CALLS ‘DEAL’ A LIE Secretary, Pressed, Is Told to Back

Up His Charge Against Carr Stevens Concedes Seeking Curb On McCarthy to End

Publicity.” ​New York Times,​ 1954.

———. 1954d. “TWO SENATORS ASK M’CARTHY HEARING RESUME AND FINISH:

Both Ferguson and McClellan Want to ‘Develop the Facts’ Despite Secrecy Order BUT

M’CARTHY DISAGREES Says All Data Must Be Bared If Inquiry Is to Continue --

 Dalrymple 20

Mundt Favors Going On SENATORS DEMAND HEARINGS RESUME.” ​New York

Times,​ 1954.

———. 1954e. “M’CARTHY INQUIRY SEEKS SPEEDY END; BITTERNESS GAINS:

Meeting Today Will Consider Whether Senator and Carr Will Be Last Witnesses

SYMINGTON IS ADAMANT Refuses McCarthy’s Demand He Step Down and Testify

-- Wrangle Is Angry M’CARTHY INQUIRY SEEKS SPEEDY END.” ​New York Times

(1923-Current File); New York, N.Y.,​ June 8, 1954.

———. 1954f. “M’CARTHY DENIES PLEAS FOR SCHINE 2 SWORE HE MADE: ARMY

IS DISPUTED Inquiry Votes in Effect to End Open Sessions by Next Week

M’CARTHY DENIES PLEAS FOR SCHINE.” ​New York Times (1923-Current File);

New York, N.Y.,​ June 11, 1954.

Loftus, Joseph A. 1954. “MUNDT DISCOUNTS M’CARTHY THREAT TO RECLAIM SEAT:

Says Move Is Not ‘Practical’ and Would Require Action by the Full Committee NIXON

URGES MORE SPEED Favors Some Limit on Inquiry--Ferguson, Policy Leader, Also

Shows Concern MUNDT DISCOUNTS M’CARTHY THREAT.” ​New York Times​,

1954.

Marder, Murrey. 1954a. “McCarthy, McClellan Clash Over Schine Issue: Wisconsin Senator

Denies Commission Would Have Halted Fight With Army.” ​The Washington Post and

Times Herald (1954-1959); Washington, D.C.,​ April 27, 1954.

———. 1954b. “McCarthy Defers Move On Secrets: Senator Will Wait Until Brownell Replies

to Letter Before Calling Him McCarthy Delays Showdown on Data.” ​The Washington

Post and Times Herald (1954-1959); Washington, D.C.,​ May 8, 1954.

 Dalrymple 21

———. 1954c. “Ignore White House, McCarthy Advises; Brownell Hunts ‘Leak.’” ​The

Washington Post and Times Herald (1954-1959); Washington, D.C.,​ May 28, 1954.

———. 1954d. “Democrat Warns Against ‘Anarchy’ As Plot to Split GOP Is Charged:

McCarthy Says Symington Seeks to Split GOP, Democrat Warns of ‘Anarchy.’” ​The

Washington Post and Times Herald (1954-1959); Washington, D.C.,​ June 8, 1954.

———. 1954e. “Republicans Act to End Army Quiz: McCarthy Denies Charges; Under

Cross-Examination.” ​The Washington Post and Times Herald (1954-1959); Washington,

D.C.,​ June 11, 1954.

McNamara, Patrick J. 2005. “McCarthy and McCarthyism.” ​American Catholic Studies​ 116 (2):

85–88.

Miller, Karen S. 1996. “‘Typical Slime By Joe McCarthy’ Ralph McGill and Anti-McCarthyism

in the South.” ​American Journalism​ 13 (3): 319–32.

Morris, John G. 1954. “McCarthy Tried ‘Foul,’ Hensel Says: Pentagon Official Quotes Him on

Plan To ‘Kick Below Belt’ In Reply to Charges Hensel Says Senator Admitted

‘Fouling.’” ​The Washington Post and Times Herald (1954-1959); Washington, D.C.,​

June 21, 1954.

Press, The United. 1954. “Mundt to Meet McCarthy Today To Draft Rules for Army Inquiry:

MUNDT, M’CARTHY TO MEET ON RULES.” ​New York Times,​ 1954.

Ryan, Edward F. 1954. “McCarthy Lies, Says Stassen: Director of FOA Charges ‘Legion Of

Falsehoods’ In Senate Speech.” ​The Washington Post and Times Herald (1954-1959);

Washington, D.C.,​ May 22, 1954.

 Dalrymple 22

Smith, Tom W. 1983. “The Polls: American Attitudes Toward the Soviet Union and

Communism.” ​Public Opinion Quarterly​ 47 (2): 277–92. https://doi.org/10.1086/268786.

Spence, Frank. n.d. “Soviet Newspaper Coverage of McCarthy.” ​Vanderbilt Historical Review​,

no. Spring 2018: 64–69.

Streitmatter, Rodger. 2016. “Standing Tall Against Joseph McCarthy.” In ​Mightier than the

Sword: How the News Media Have Shaped American History,​ 4th ed., 131–45.

Routledge.

The Washington Post and Times Herald (1954-1959); Washington, D.C.​ 1954. “Hill ‘Rarely’

Asks Favors, Stevens Says: Army Secretary Tells McCarthy Routine Requests Are

Many,” April 19, 1954.

Times, Special to The New York. 1954a. “Dare to Indict Him Made by McCarthy: M’CARTHY

DEFIES SECURITY RULING.” ​New York Times​, 1954.

———. 1954b. “Jenkins Says He Would Let McCarthy Aid Him in Race: But the Chances Are

Against His Running ‘Unless I Change My Mind’ -- Concedes Dirksen Suggested Bid for

Senate JENKINS IS OPEN TO M’CARTHY AID.” ​New York Times (1923-Current

File); New York, N.Y.,​ June 21, 1954.