John Stewart sagely informs us that (1) "Roosevelt wasn't President when the stock market crashed" (in 1929), and (2) "no one had televisions". And The New York Times helpfully offers that "Herbert Hoover was president when the stock market crashed, in 1929. Roosevelt did not take office until March of 1933. When he did, Roosevelt communicated to the people over radio — not television."
Well ... apparently neither Stewart nor the Editorial Board of The New York Times are media historians.
Here's a little history for them:
1. Herbert Hoover (then Secretary of Commerce) and Walter S. Gifford (President of AT&T) participated in a conversation via television hook-up between Washington and New York in .... tada tada ... 1927!
2. FDR gave a televised address from the 1939 World's Fair in New York ... thereby becoming the first U.S. President to be televised.
3. FDR was televised from a Democratic Rally in Madison Square Garden in October, 1940.
So, here is what is TRUE about what Stewart, the New York Times, et al have been saying about Biden's gaffe: (1) FDR was indeed not President when the stock market crashed in 1929.
And, here is what is FALSE about what Stewart, the New York Times, et al have been saying about Biden's gaffe: (1) Contrary to what Stewart said, there was indeed television in 1927. (2) Contrary to what The New York Times said, although FDR was known for his fireside radio chats (see my The Soft Edge: A Natural History and Future of the Information Revolution for details), he indeed also communicated to Americans via television.Now, television service was indeed much less common in the late 20s and the 30s and early 40s than it would soon after become, and Biden indeed was mostly in error in his statement to Couric ... But, media, next time you publicly take potshots at a VP candidate, open a book, look around a little on the Web, get your facts right ... It's not that hard.
21 comments:
He didn't say there weren't any televisions, he said nobody had one. And he was right.
And FDR communicated to the American public via television... which very few had... ten years after the stock market crash.
FAIL.
Well, Tim, obviously Hoover and Gifford had one - actually, two.
And the New York Times' statement that Roosevelt communicated to the American public by radio not television is also false - because, as I wrote in my blog (look it up), FDR communicated at least twice by television.
So, I'm afraid you're the one who fails - to either read clearly, or think clearly, take your choice - easy multiple choice for you. :)
You are adopting an overly literal interpretation of Stewart's comment that "no one had televisions." Most listeners would rightly conclude that by saying "no one" he meant essentially no one compared to the claim made by Biden. In particular, others have pointed out that the television was essentially in early stages of research in the US at that time. A 1937 article in Modern Mechanics bemoans the small number of sets deployed in the US as compared to several European nations. According to the article, "...the United States could mobilize no more than 150 units. Of this number, about 100 are experimental models assembled by the Radio Corporation of America for its executives and engineers. They are installed in the homes of these individuals for strictly confidential use and the utmost secrecy has been enjoined upon their possessors. Of the remainder of the allotment, some are in research laboratories and only a very few in the residences of individuals."
Note that this was in 1937. I imagine the distribution was somewhat less in 1929. Your comment that television service was much less common in the late 20s - early 40s masks the truly startling misconception on Biden's part. The larger point is that television broadcast would not have been an effective means to calm nationwide anxiety after the market crash, and that an FDR televised speech would only have baffled a few researchers.
Your facts are right, anon, but I think it is your interpretation, not mine, that is wrong.
Stewart and the New York Times depict Biden as totally ignorant of media history. In fact, associating FDR with television is correct, historically, even though Biden was of course wrong that FDR used to talk to the country after the market crashed.
Pretty weak Paul. With an explanation like that you'd have to think we're all as stupid as you are desperate to protect Biden from his running mouth. If you're gonna make it your job to defend Biden, you'd better turn off the television.
Stick to the fiction that's believable. He's gaffe prone, and he does a better job explaining himself!
I don't think anyone's stupid, Shane - until they make comments like yours.
If you actually read my post, rather than just offering Republican propaganda, you'd see that I agree that Biden was wrong, and I'm not trying to protect him. Rather, as a defender of the First Amendment and the media, I like to also hold them to account when they are wrong, and call them on it. That's what my post is about.
Next time, read a little, before you start commenting about fictional posts... :)
If tomorrow Palin were to claim that FDR could have saved millions of lives by nuking Tokyo in 1942, would you defend her on the grounds that it is correct to associate FDR with the development of atomic weapons, even though none had yet been usefully developed and deployed at that time?
No, because in fact no nuclear weapons existed anywhere, in any form, in 1942.
But television, as I explained in my post, did exist since 1927, and FDR did indeed appear on it in the 30s etc - not making Biden right, but making his critics sloppy and wrong.
Which I also said clearly in my post.
Tell me, do you just post comments in response to reading the titles of blogs, or do you read them first? :)
I think one thing to note is that the sense of community in the 20's and 30's was far more important to people.
Communication in general was far more important in a far less technical world.
Interesting point, Joe - I certainly that, in the early days of radio and then television, there was more of a gather around the campfire feeling regarding communication between Presidents and the American feeling.
But I don't communication is less important today. Rather, I think it's taken a different form - blogs, YouTube, and the Internet world of new new media.
Regardless of whether Biden was right or Stewart was right or how much of a gaffe it is ... The New York Times, as a self-proclaimed newspaper of record, should have checked whether FDR only communicated via radio or primarily communicated via radio and sometimes communicated via TV. It may be splitting hairs, but they're journalists that's their job. To research, find the particulars, report the truth back to readers. Not just react without research.
Stewart does fake news. I fault him much less.
Although, the comment still makes me wonder if Biden spoke without entirely thinking through what he was saying.
Well said, Jessica!
Paul: at least we're not talking about who is the pig and who is the lipstick? . . . i think Joe Biden misremembered, to use the not so old Roger Clemens excuse. let's focus on the issues and ideas and less on the sideshow.
/jimy_max
Agreed - I just like holding the New York Times to a higher standard of accuracy...
Nevermind that Biden never mentioned "1929" (watch the clip). Two of the worst crashes occured during FDR's tenure as President (i.e. http://mutualfunds.about.com/cs/history/p/crash8.htm and http://mutualfunds.about.com/cs/history/p/crash2.htm), although his addresses regarding them would have been by radio, even though TVs were starting to become commercially available at that time.
Good points, Chewy - welcome to Infinite Regress - and thanks!
So perhaps we can all agree, a better criticism of Biden is this:
"Senator Biden appears ignorant of history and the history of 'mass' media in particular. FDR wasn't President during the most memorable crash in 1929, and while he was President during two other crashes, at no time could he have reached the 'masses' through television, since televisions (and stations) had not yet become widely, or even sparsely, available."
More accurate, more wordy, and loses the punch of the joke that I believe Stewart was going for.
Quite frankly, all Stewart (and the NYTimes) did was take a complex issue, distill it down, and present the facts in a quick way we all understand. Kind of like physicists explaining the action of gravity and relativity. Do you really want to see all the equations every time, or can you live with a ball rolling around on a rubber sheet?
Sometimes a simpler explanation gets the point across well enough. Biden spoke without thinking things through. 'Nuf said.
Biden often speaks without thinking. That's why he is a NINNY.
Obama often speaks without saying anything substantive.
That's why he is a SOPHIST (modern definition).
Levinson is trying hard to "spin" Biden's stupid utterance into something that appears less stupid.
That's why he is a LAME, FEY APOLOGIST.
You will soon see the huge cost associated with the ascension of LAME, FEY, APOLOGIZING, APPEASING, SOPHIST NINNYS to power. By the way, Nancy Pelosi, the queen of the lame thinkers, will be there to greet them. . .
Professor: Nope, not "nuf said": The New York Times, as the newspaper of record, has an obligation to get its facts straight. It did not. Television obviously did exist in 1929. I called them on it, and will continue to. As for Stewart, he want for a laugh, was sloppy with his facts, and as a member of his audience, I like to see jokes with a sharper aim.
anon: I've published your comment because I like to keep permanent records, open to the public, of the lame humor and reasoning of some Republican supporters in 2008. So, thanks for that, much appreciated!
(Note: Not the same anon; also, I'm a libertarian, not a republican)
Your facts are right, anon, but I think it is your interpretation, not mine, that is wrong.
Stewart and the New York Times depict Biden as totally ignorant of media history. In fact, associating FDR with television is correct, historically, even though Biden was of course wrong that FDR used to talk to the country after the market crashed.
Associating FDR with television may not be technically wrong, but the implications of Biden's statement - namely, that TVs were widely available at the time - are.
And, perhaps more importantly, you're implying that Biden already knew about media history to a certain extent, when it's simply much more likely that he was completely ignorant. To use an analogy, if historians found an ancient document stating that the world is not a ball, while the writers of that document would be technically correct (the world is more of a 3-D oval, as it bulges slightly at the equator and flattens slightly at the poles), it would be foolish to assume that they were referencing the more nuanced shape of the world, rather than saying what they said out of complete ignorance.
So, my point is, in all likelihood, Biden was ignorant of history and as a result made the (nonetheless) incredibly stupid error of thinking that TVs were widely available during the market crash that preceded the depression and that FDR was president during that time. As well, that error is a lot less nuanced than the error made by the NY Times.
anon (libertarian): well, your comment is a little better reasoned than the name-calling Republican anon's comment...
But I still disagree with you on at least two points:
1. Why assume Biden was genuinely ignorant of FDR's fireside chats, in contrast to his misspeaking? As far as we know, most people in the ancient world did not believe it was round. On the other hand, most people of Biden's age are very familiar with FDR - from their own recollections and their parents'. It's therefore more logical to assume that Biden's parents talked to him about FDR's fireside chats on radio, that Biden himself heard some of them, and Biden therefore knew they were on radio not television, and just misspoke.
2. The New York Times as a newspaper has a much greater burden of accuracy on this issue: if you're going to print an article which reports that a candidate got something wrong, you have an obligation to your readers to at least get your facts right.
Post a Comment