Podcast Host (2:43)

You know, President Trump loves the news media, all right? We know he's always bashing the so called fake news, but the man knows what he's doing. And the press can't get enough of him either. He just sat down with one of the pillars of the mainstream press. He supposedly despises CBS's 60 Minutes for an extended interview. The fact is, pretty much every president, especially in the modern age, has complained about the press, usually in private, sometimes in public, and sometimes they've waged campaigns against detested journalists. President Nixon demanded that his press aide ban the Washington Post from White House events because of its coverage of Watergate.

Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) (3:20)

I want it clearly understood that from now on, ever, no reporter from the Washington Post is ever to be in the White House. Is that clear? Absolutely. Unless it's a press conference. Yes, sir. Briefings here, but not a briefing. Never, never in the White House. No church service, nothing that Mrs. Nixon does. You tell Connie. Don't tell Mrs. Nixon because she'll approve it. No reporter from the Washington Post just ever to be in the White House again. And no photographer either. No photographer. Is that clear? Yes, sir. None ever to be in. Now that is a total order. And if necessary, I'll fire you. You understand? I do understand. Okay.

Podcast Host (4:01)

And that was just the tip of the Nixonian iceber at her substack imperfect union. Historian Lindsay Chervinsky has written a pair of essays on this subject, saying the relationship between presidents and the press is a complicated one and has been since George Washington took the oath of office on April 30, 1789. Presidents need the press, she says, in whatever form it takes to make the most of their bully pulpit authority. Yet the tradition of the Fourth Estate calls for the press to hold authority accountable.

Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) (4:29)

That I welcome this kind of examination because people have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I shall resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow.

Podcast Host (4:40)

Lindsey Chervinsky is the executive director of the George Washington Presidential Library and the author of most recently, Making the John Adams and the Precedents that Forged the Republic. Our conversation next to Skip ads Tap. Subscribe now in the show notes Lindsay Chervinsky. Welcome back to the show.

Lindsay Chervinsky (4:59)

Thank you so much for having me back.

Podcast Host (5:01)

We are delighted to hear from you again. And before I ask you about your essays at your substack Imperfect Union, let us know how things are going at Mount Vernon. I trust the America 250 celebration preparations are well underway.

Lindsay Chervinsky (5:17)

They are. Things have been going Great. A couple weeks ago, we hosted the final preview of Ken Burns new documentary on the revolution and had over 4,000 people out on the lawn watching that. So that was a wonderful experience. And I think that's going to be a really interesting cultural moment in a way that we don't really have anymore, our shared experiences across so many different generations. So I'm very excited about that. We are going to be reopening the entire mansion just before Thanksgiving, which is huge because it has been massively, massively under renovation, as visitors know, for the last year or so. And it will be in, I think, the best shape that it's been in since Washington died. So that's incredible. And we are on track to open our brand new museum and food court in the spring of 2026 in time for all of those visitors.

Podcast Host (6:11)

People can find out about all of the events that will be taking place between now and America250 next July@mount Vernon.org right?

Lindsay Chervinsky (6:21)

Yes, that's right. And if you're interested in particular in the library events, which are what I run, then it's mountvernon.org library.

Podcast Host (6:29)

So mount vernon.org and mount vernon.org library. So why did you want to write these two essays, a two part, if you will, at your substack, in perfect union, about presidents and the press? Why'd you want to write them now?

Lindsay Chervinsky (6:43)

Well, I started writing them when there was, you know, the major explosion around Jimmy Kimmel's show and his sort of canceling and then putting back on the air. And that was really dominating our discourse. And one of the things that I try and always do with my work is explore where we've been as a nation and how did we get here? So I try really hard not to offer political commentary, but instead to say, you know, what has come before? How might it have shaped. Shaped our current moment to help people understand the current moment better. And I think, you know, we really can't understand what we're living through if we don't understand what comes before. There's so much good history of presidents in the press. Or maybe good is the wrong word. There's so much interesting history of presidents in the press that what I had intended to be one essay ended up being two because it was just too long to put into one substack.

Podcast Host (7:34)

Yeah. I will put links to your essays in my weekly newsletter and in the show notes to this episode. Now you have a hard job as a public historian. Mount Vernon is a nonpartisan institution. I can be opinionated, although I pride myself on being nonpartisan. But when you touch current events, try to put them into historical perspective, it gets a little bit more difficult. I mean, anyone could go back to John Adams and say what a terrible law he signed, the Alien and Sedition Acts. You do have to dance a little bit more carefully about what's happening now. But I think everyone knows that Donald Trump has a testy relationship with the press. He calls the press fake news, but like all past presidents, he's needed the press. He was just on 60 Minutes doing a really long interview with Norah O'. Donnell. Is it right to say that, broadly speaking, pretty much every president has complained about the press at one time or another?

Lindsay Chervinsky (8:26)

Yes. I don't think there is a single president who has been thrilled with their press coverage all of the time. That is pretty much by design. The of the press is to hold people in power to account. So that means that people in power are sometimes not going to like what they say. And that doesn't mean that they're wrong or that the presidents have to like it, but that we should expect some of that tension as an important characteristic of the system.

Podcast Host (8:52)

And while that has been the same or that's been a consistency, presidents being annoyed at reporters, what we call the press has changed so dramatically, we would need a whole series of podcasts to go over that. The press today can be podcasters or influencers who are now welcomed in to the White House briefing room. Maybe we'll return to the present moment at the end. Where does the term fourth estate come from?

Lindsay Chervinsky (9:17)

Oh, well, this is such a great question and a good place to start. So this is a nod to the three types of estates that were in sort of the old regimes in England, but more so in France. And the three estates under the ancient regime were the clergy, the nobility and the common man. Whenever the king in France in particular would gather together his parliament, he would gather together these three estates. So in England in particular, after the Glorious Revolution, which was in 1688, there was a negotiated power structure with the monarchy and parliament, and it guaranteed Parliament more power over the governing system and especially over finances and the right to be in session. Regardless of what the king said, what that led to was a rise of an opposition party. So, and this is important because under these ancient regimes, if you were opposed to the king, that was inherently disloyal or traitorous. And so the rise of an opposition party meant that you could disagree with the ruling party's positions, but not necessarily be disloyal. It's called a Loyal opposition. And the press, which of course again looked different in the 17th and 18th century England than it does today, was very much a part of that opposition because they were starting to discuss the flaws and the weaknesses and the strengths of the party in power. And so they started to be referred to as the fourth estate, as an important part of society and having an understood and accepted role in what the governing system should look like.

Podcast Host (10:51)

There were broadsheets, newspapers, pamphlets, cartoonists. A really rich tradition that carried over to the American colonies because 1688, that's the end of absolute monarchy, divine right, monarchy in Britain, Britain and Parliament rises and the rise of this two party system where you now have a loyal opposition party that emboldens the political press in Britain. And you could say the same about the American colonies as well.

Lindsay Chervinsky (11:19)

It does. And it doesn't mean to say that the press had the same sort of rights it does today, because the British king still tried to crack down on criticism. And there were times when they tried to seize newspaper presses in particular, like they would actually take the press, the printing press that would produce the newspaper and make it difficult for an editor to publish a story. But the American colonies have to be understood in this tradition because they considered themselves to be, of course, members of the British system. They considered themselves to be citizens, and they considered themselves to be sort of a part of what we call the Whig tradition. There were the Whigs and there were the Tories and the Whigs were more of the country party. They tended to be a little less pro monarchy and more inclined to be sort of progressive in their views. And so the colonists, as they were advocating for reform, viewed that advocacy within the wake tradition. And so they very much embraced the role of the press as part of that tradition and as part of their heritage as good British citizens.

Podcast Host (12:25)

Well, this was the age of the politics of deference. Right. How dare these people criticize me during the age of Kings. A critical press was certainly something new. But this was even say, George Washington's attitude toward the societies, the democratic republican societies who are attacking him, especially in the second term. The press was pretty mean towards George.

Lindsay Chervinsky (12:47)

Yes. So Washington in his first term, for the most part, didn't suffer too much criticism. There was some disagreement and debate over specific policies. In particular the creation of the first bank of the United States. But that criticism became much more vociferous in 1793 with the clash over the French Revolution. At this point, the French Revolution had been going on for a couple of years. France declared war on Great Britain. The Democratic Republicans and the Democratic Republican societies that supported them, they were sort of clubs that were sort of nascent political clubs. They were in favor of supporting France in this war. And the Federalists either wanted to stay out of it or sort of favored a pro British neutrality because Britain was the greatest trade partner of the United States. And when Washington did assert neutrality, he received a ton of criticism. And lest we think that the moment we're living in is the only nasty one we've had, this criticism was often based on lies. It often just printed slander and falsehoods. There was very little recourse for that kind of thing. He very much disliked it.

Podcast Host (13:54)

Did he ever do anything about it?

Lindsay Chervinsky (13:56)

Well, he complained a lot in private in particular, my favorite story is there was one editor in Philadelphia, the editor of the Aurora, which was probably the leader of this opposition press. And he delivered three copies of his newspaper to Washington every single day, even after Washington canceled his subscription just to annoy the President. And it worked quite well. Washington, in a cabinet meeting, complained about it and said that it was basically designed to be impudent. And did he think that he was going to. Did this editor think that he was going to serve as, you know, like a newspaper boy for him and distribute these copies? He was outraged at this insult, but he never said anything publicly. And that's for two reasons. One, he thought it was beneath the dignity of the office to respond to such sort of low brow criticism. And two, he understood that even though the executive branch and the federal government was much smaller than it is today, it still was so much more powerful than one person and one newspaper that it would be effectively punching down in a way that was inappropriate.

Podcast Host (15:01)

Impudent was the word he used. That's such a 18th century.

Lindsay Chervinsky (15:05)

I know it's such a good word, but it really, it gets at exactly what he was feeling.

Podcast Host (15:10)

Historian Jeff Paisley wrote a book arguing that from the very start of our republic, even before the foundation of our republic, newspapers and pamphlets were openly partisan. If people believed we have a problem with partisan press today. Well, they do have a point, of course. Who are we talking about? New York Times or MSNBC or Fox News or just some influencer with a large following? Right. But anyway, back to the 18th century here, openly partisan were often supported by political patronage. These early partisan newspapers, says Paisley, bolstered democracy because the readership felt they now had a stake in the outcomes of these heated battles. They could take sides, one or the other, in these early political fights. These publications were often, as you said, truly scurrilous. Especially when it came to the treatment of John Adams in the 1790s. Really, really terrible stuff. Stuff. But do you agree with Paisley that this was important into developing, developing American democracy, having a partisan press?

Lindsay Chervinsky (16:11)

It's a really interesting argument. You know, I completely agree that the press was partisan. And I think I often share the parallel. And the distinction that I draw with today in the 1790s is that in the 1790s everyone understood that the press was partisan. So there was no misconception about what they were getting. Whereas I think a lot of people today still operate under the expectation that there are the Walter Cronkites and the Edward Morrows who are operating in good faith. And I do believe that those figures do exist today. There are people really trying to play it down the middle and just the facts. The problem is we can't always distinguish who is who. And so I think that's the big difference. I do think the newspapers played a very important role in cultivating participation and buy in from the citizens. You know, building a new nation is nearly impossible. Getting citizens to buy into these new practices and customs and norms, some of them had to be taught for the first time, like the peaceful transfer of power, for example. So many of our institutions do rely on citizens to uphold them so that they will survive to future generations. Whether or not that had to be partisan, I'm not totally sure. But that's kind of a counterfactual, that's hard to test. It was partisan and that's. That's how it worked.

Podcast Host (17:24)

So the first part of your answer there about what's happening today. Yes, there is a big problem with media literacy. Not to sound like a snob over here, but being able to discern the difference between factual reporting and opinion. Of course, there are outlets out there that deliberately blur that line. I have to bring up the Sedition Act. Your most recent book was about John Adams. A favorable view of the impact he had on the presidency, the institution of the presidency. But I think all historians agree the Sedition act, alien sedition acts were mistakes. That act made it illegal to print or publish false, scandalous and malicious writing against the government. Although you could still attack the vice president at the time because he was a member of a different party. That would be Thomas Jefferson. At the time, people had to know that this was a violation of freedom of speech and the First Amendment. The ink was still drawing on the Bill of Rights.

Lindsay Chervinsky (18:20)

We now have a pretty good sense of what the First Amendment protects and does not. We have carve outs for Example, speech that is designed to provoke violence is not protected under the First Amendment. There are exceptions that we have carved out for, you know, national security moments. Like we have acknowledged that in times of war, there's going to be. There's a lower bar for what you can sort of suppress in terms of the First Amendment. But all of that jurisprudence has taken centuries to develop. I think there were still a lot of questions at the time, and there was a good faith concern that speech genuinely was being used to provoke violence in the streets. And it was. There were mobs and there were clashes in the streets that had been called for in newspapers. Which is of course, not to excuse the bill, because I do think it was a violation, but rather to add a little bit of fuzziness to our understanding about how they were thinking about the First Amendment. And I would say there are two other important pieces of context around the bill that are essential to understand. The first is that the bill was really driven by the radical Federalists in Congress. This was not a bill that Adams called for or tried to whip votes for. And that is important because it was not the Executive coming down on opponents, although it did sort of have that in practice, but in design, it was really Congress. And the second piece, I should say, is that the executive branch and the federal government, while quite powerful and while there were prosecutions, was nowhere near the executive branch of today.

Podcast Host (19:52)

But Republican newspaper editors were jailed, right?

Lindsay Chervinsky (19:55)

Yes, they were. And so, again, it's really important to not view any of this context as an apology or as an excuse for this bill. I do think it's the dark mark on John Adams presidency. It is seen as a violation, and it was seen as such by people like Thomas Jefferson in the moment. But I think it's essential for us to not put our thinking about the First Amendment on the 1790s.

Podcast Host (20:18)

We have a lot of ground to cover here chronologically. But another question about Adams before we move on. The Republican presses were truly cruel to him. Scurrilous is the word that Gordon Wood uses in his big book about this period. Do you have any idea why they were so vicious toward Adams?

Lindsay Chervinsky (20:35)

On one hand, I think, you know, it was partly that he did not have the prestige of Washington. He did not have the unilateral backing of the Federalist Party in the way that Washington did. So he was kind of an easy target. He also sometimes put his foot in his mouth. He was way too honest and did not necessarily have the poker face and the ability to be a little deceptive that Jefferson was so good at and that sometimes politics requires. And so I do think he sometimes opened himself up in ways that really astute and savvy politicians don't do.

Podcast Host (21:08)

I'm guessing it was good for readership too.

Lindsay Chervinsky (21:11)

Absolutely. And you know, at this point, you really had the first two political parties coming into their own. They did not have the sort of financial structures that we have today, but they were beginning to develop methods of communication and organization. And these Republican presses were an essential part of the early Republican Party. And this should not be, of course, confused with the Republican Party of Lincoln or today. This is the Democratic Republican Party. But they called themselves Republicans, so that's why I use that term. And so they were viewing this criticism in some ways as a party building structure.

Podcast Host (21:44)

Yeah, the parties in those days, as you say, they were nascent. They were just starting to build an organization. Not even close to the even hollowed out parties we have today, which is another story. But because there weren't the big party structures, I think a lot of the criticism could be directed at individuals. They had to bear the brunt of all, all that vitriol.

Lindsay Chervinsky (22:04)

And there wasn't a method of defense necessarily. I mean, the Federalist Papers could kind of pick up and defend Adams if they wanted to, but the Federalist Party was quite fractured, especially later in Adams presidency. And so that, I think, added to the conflict.

Podcast Host (22:20)

And that was kind of beneath the stuffy Federalists too. Right. I mean, the Republicans seem to just be better with their own presses and that kind of politics, that style of politics.

Lindsay Chervinsky (22:29)

Politics, yes, they were, without a doubt. I mean, I think early on the Republican Party just had the advantage in terms of organization, communication. And there's a reason the Federalist Party eventually sort of disintegrated and was lost to historical memory. And it's because they didn't have those skills and abilities.

Podcast Host (22:47)

We spent enough time on poor John Adams here, Andrew Jackson and Francis Blair Sr. Who was Francis Blair, briefly, And what were they doing? They were meeting together. Right. To decide which stories would be covered in the newspaper the next day.

Lindsay Chervinsky (23:03)

So Francis Blair Sr. Was a Democratic Party operative and he was the editor of a really important newspaper in Washington, D.C. that was seen as the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. He also critically lived in the Blair House, which for those of you who have visited Washington, D.C. you know, is right across the street from the White House House. And Jackson, because his wife had passed before he came into the White House and he didn't have children, was often looking for sort of a family structure. And so he would regularly go over to the Blair house for dinner. And then after dinner, Jackson and Francis Blair Sr. Would sit by the fire and just. And smoke their pipes and decide what was going to be in the newspaper the next day. So when we talk about the president having a role in the crafting of press and in the party line in the newspaper, it was is quite literally.

Podcast Host (23:52)

Hands on political parties had newspapers or newspapers were aligned with one party or the other. Anytime I read a book about antebellum politics and I see newspapers cited by the historian in the text or in the footnotes, usually the historian will note which party the newspaper was for. The Democratic so and so, the pro Lincoln so and so newspaper editors during this time, and this is the era still before the modern professional journalism that I came under standards, ethics, not having conflicts of interest, but newspaper editors in the mid 19th century. Lindsay they were power brokers, right?

Lindsay Chervinsky (24:32)

They were. And that was possible for two reasons. One, the different standards of journalism that you mentioned, but also the way that political positions and positions in government were doled out. So this was the rise of what we call the spoil system. So whoever won the presidency or at the state level, the governorship, they had enormous power to give very sometimes lucrative positions to their supporters that had helped them in making this possible. And newspaper editors, they were sometimes recipients of those positions, but they were also critical power brokers in determining who actually got some of those lucrative positions because of their support during the election.

Podcast Host (25:11)

A big part of this history, a big part of this story that you cover so ably in your newsletter is when a press president just doesn't complain about the press, but takes active measures, uses the power of his office in the federal government to shut down the press. We already mentioned John Adams. That was a short lived legislation. And I believe the Republican editors who are thrown in jail were pardoned by Jefferson, Lincoln and the press. He shut down pro Confederate newspapers. Why?

Lindsay Chervinsky (25:43)

Yeah, he did. He shut down both pro Confederate newspapers and also newspapers that, that were advocating for opposition to recruitment efforts. This was a war measure and it was justified as such in certain areas where, especially in Maryland where habeas corpus was suspended, there were military tribunals. And so there was basically military law. And so if a newspaper was advocating or was trying to organize opposition to draft measures, those people would often be arrested and tried under military tribunals. One argument, especially in Maryland, was that the regular courts of law were not practicing, they weren't in session. And so you had to have some way to manage society during this crisis. You know, I Think that there are pro and con arguments to it. I think most people have kind of come down on the side of this was the biggest crisis in American history. It was certainly the greatest threat to the Union. And so when you have that dire of a threat, there are going to be measures that are tolerated that are not otherwise. And I think Lincoln's forbearance and other areas, his willingness to offer mercy in moments, his willingness to offer sort of forgiveness and to bring people back into society, go a long way towards a sense that he wasn't unnecessarily vengeful.

Podcast Host (27:02)

Yeah, I think historians do grade Lincoln well when it comes to these extraordinary measures that, as you say, were taken in a certain context. An emergency assistant Civil War, which I think most people today understand and agree that when we're in a dire emergency, say an insurrection, that the federal government has power or authority to do things that it wouldn't normally have. And I'm certainly no expert on Lincoln's presidency, but if there's anything I disagree with, it would be the shutting down of these newspapers. I understand that they are trying to get people to not serve for the Union army, which would have crippled the Union war effort. And then maybe we don't have a country anymore anymore or the country as we knew it. But still. I don't know how you feel about. About this as a historian.

Lindsay Chervinsky (27:47)

It's hard to say because of course we're sitting here from the comfort of 2025 and we know how it turned out. So it's easy to say, you know, they probably didn't need to do so. What I think is notable is the places in which they shut them down. You know, they did not crush opposition newspapers everywhere. They crushed opposition newspapers in certain places. So Ohio, New York, Washington, D.C. those were notable because Ohio and New York did have a lot of either pro Confederate or what we would consider to be copperhead Democrats as sort of pro Union, but pretty squishy and really wanted to sort of appease the Confederacy. And then of course, Washington D.C. which was the seat of the federal government and it was right on the doorstep of the Confederacy. So to me, that is notable because it suggests that the limitation of these rights was really trying to be situational as opposed to a. Across the board.

Podcast Host (28:36)

And Lincoln was not a tyrant. He allowed for the election to happen in 1864. He ran for reelection against an opposition that was pretty vicious to him. That 1864 election was a nasty one. He actually at one point in 1864 thought he might lose. But then the war, the fortunes of war turned in the Union's favor, and he won. But had he lost, he would not have tried to stay in office afterward. He was not a tyrant. You know, Donald Trump's relationship, relationship with the press, as we mentioned at the top, has been heavily criticized, but he has never tried to shut down a newspaper. Sure, he bashes newspapers and individual reporters in his news conferences quite a bit. World War I, Woodrow Wilson, even during World War II, the war we look back on with such pride as Americans today, there was censorship, Right. And there were many government measures taken to ensure that the public only got positive news about what was going on. Going on, Right.

Lindsay Chervinsky (29:28)

Yes, absolutely. And, you know, I think the distinction between World War I and World War II is a really interesting one because they're viewed quite differently by historians. And I think in our public memory In World War II, again, there was a sense that this war was a real crisis. The threat posed by Nazi Germany, I think, just feels so much more extreme than the threat posed by Germany in World War I. And so there were. There were censorship measures, both voluntary and enforced. So there was a whole campaign about, if you see troop movements, if you see ships being moved, don't say anything because you can't, you know, of course, stop all eyeballs from registering what they're seeing, but you can encourage people to be patriotic in their silence. And so there was a voluntary movement to try and limit the spread of information. There was enforced censorship in that way, in terms of checking the mail to make sure there wasn't information about these troop movements and secretive information. And then there was a propaganda effort, and this is, Uncle Sam wants you. And there's, you know, those flyers to try and get people, people to participate or grow their own victory garden so that they can have vegetables or, you know, save your fat for the soldiers, things like that, as well as only ensuring that good news about the war effort gets out to try and maintain morale. I suppose as a historian, I should say that these are maybe not ideal measures, but I think. I guess I just understand it, and I understand it, given the crisis. There are certainly a lot of things that I have major objections to in World War II, Japanese internment being the most notable. But I have trouble getting riled up about this one.

Podcast Host (30:56)

Well, FDR didn't try to shut down any newspapers as far as I know.

Lindsay Chervinsky (31:00)

It was more of limiting specific information as opposed to targeting people or presses.

Podcast Host (31:05)

And American public did not see photographs, for instance, of dead GIs for several years into the war. That was all censored World War I. I've done an entire episode recently on World War I, so I don't want to spend too much time on it. Here. I will share a link to that episode for people who want to learn more about the repression during World War I. But it was severe, not just against the press, against any dissent. Eugene Debs, a socialist, was thrown in jail for giving an anti war speech because, similar to what happened during the Civil War, he was trying to get people not to sign up, not to serve in the army, to defy the draft. Socialist presses were shut down, Socialist publishers were thrown in prison. The Wilson administration basically destroyed the socialist movement in our country during that war. I said I wasn't going to spend a lot of time on it there, Lindsay, but I just did a speech.

Lindsay Chervinsky (31:53)

So, yes, I mean, the repression was extreme. And what is, I think important is it also continued long after the war was done. So there were massive raids, there were deportations. Yes, the Palmer Raids, which were led by Attorney General Palmer. This was the first Red Scare. And so while some people might be a little bit more apologetic of the World War I efforts, they tend to blur because so many of the same tactics were used and are generally seen as a real violation of constitutional rights and rightly held against the Wilson administration.

Podcast Host (32:24)

Yeah, there was another sedition act.

Lindsay Chervinsky (32:26)

There was a sedition act and there was an espionage act. And they were incredibly vague and they were incredibly broadly designed, which allowed the administration to round up people for all sorts of things that we would not consider to be espionage.

Podcast Host (32:39)

Yeah, it wasn't espionage. It was dissent, which was primarily used to crack down on, bounce around the timeline a little bit here. I know we got to get to the rest of the 20th century and we'll do so. But you did say in your essays, the President's relationship with the press fundamentally changed at the end of the 19th century for two reasons.

Lindsay Chervinsky (32:59)

Well, I think there are two big reasons that the press and their relationship with the presidents change. The first is technological, of course. The advent of things like the photograph and eventually television and radio allowed presidents to speak directly to the American people in a way that they hadn't been able to. So the press, while still very important brokers of that information and that relationship, there were always ways around them. And so I think that fundamentally changes the power balance. The second is the rise of the journalistic ethics that we have mentioned. And this is spearheaded by muckraker journalists who really viewed it as their role to uncover corruption, fraud, wrongdoing, horrible conditions in factories, living Conditions, et cetera, et cetera. And they spurred many of the Progressive era reforms like child labor laws, safety conditions for food factories to ensure people were not eating horrible things, preservation of natural resources. There's so much of that Progressive era, but it did lead to the rise of journalism schools, journalism as a profession. And so the trust trusted non political journalists that we see in the 20th century are direct byproduct of this movement.

Podcast Host (34:11)

Teddy Roosevelt was a skilled manipulator of the press. We often think of his cousin Franklin Roosevelt and the use of the radio. You spent some time in your essays talking about Teddy Roosevelt and how he was able to use the press. You know, I think any president understands that they're going to get negative coverage, but they'll do, if they're smart, they'll do what they can to cultivate positive coverage. At the same time time, Theodore Roosevelt.

Lindsay Chervinsky (34:35)

Understood the incredible value that was offered by the press. And so as early on as you know, during the Spanish American War, he brought a photographer with him to capture his exploits in Cuba such that he could share them with the American people, recognizing the incredible value there. And so as president he did the same. He was the first to really carve out a space in the White House for the press corps. He had a press office in the newly built West Wing. He met with them daily, he brought them into the White House and, and while he was getting his morning shave, he would tell them stories and gossip and inside information. Now critically, he would then tell them afterwards what they could actually publish and not publish, which today we usually have to say that up front. So he would say afterwards. But if they didn't follow the rules then they wouldn't be welcomed back. So they understood that this was a mutually beneficial negotiation of stories and influence and access. But the press also had their own fair share of, of ways to kind of get back at him. And they would often ask the most infuriating questions just as the, the barber was taking the straight razor up underneath Theodore Roosevelt's jugular and he would leap up in frustration and the barber would have to quickly move his hand so as to not to decapitate the President. So they both had a good time with each other, pushing and pulling, I think had given each other a hard.

Podcast Host (35:55)

Time while he was getting his morning shave.

Lindsay Chervinsky (35:57)

It's a little bit of an old school way to do it, but it does give you a good visual.

Podcast Host (36:01)

So we're going to move ahead to Nixon and Watergate and the impact that had Vietnam War as well on the press. President Relationship. But one other, one other item here. The types of stories reporters would cover has obviously changed. Scandal, personal scandal. Fdr, well, this wasn't a scandal. It was his health, the press not really reporting on his polio, the fact that he was in a wheelchair, JFK and his philandering as well as his physical ailments. He was not a well man. The, the press was there. Quid pro quo what was going on there? They didn't report on that stuff about jfk.

Lindsay Chervinsky (36:38)

No, they didn't. And it's hard for us to imagine, but the Kennedy family was so popular and really was so glamorous and had such an oversized impact in the American imagination that I think some reporters felt that they didn't want to sully that. That image for any. Anyone, especially because Mrs. Kennedy was also beloved. That is hard for us to imagine in our world today where the press is often quite eager to do so. And so that was a very outdated social norm around the press. But then also most of the press corps were men and the Kennedy administration did kind of have an old boys club vibe to it. And so I think there was some willingness to turn a blind eye because they were often quite friendly.

Podcast Host (37:21)

Eleanor Roosevelt would have her own press conferences for female reporters. Right. Because they were not allowed to speak to the President with the male reporters, is that right?

Lindsay Chervinsky (37:29)

Yes, they were barred from the regular press room partly by their peers. Some of the publications also intentionally put male reporters into that space. And so she really wanted journalism to be a profession that was open to women. And so she opened her own sort of press room and, and had regular press briefings and only permitted female reporters to attend. Pretend.

Podcast Host (37:50)

You ever see the movie His Girl Friday with Carrie Grant? What a great movie. The heroine female reporter. I shared with you an article about LBJ. 1965 CBS News reports American Marines set fire to a village. Cam ney lbj. I've heard this audio tape. He calls the president of CBS News, Frank St. Stand in early morning phone call. Standen has no idea who's calling him. At first I hang my head in.

Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) (38:20)

Shame at Yalls performance both NBC and cbs and particularly Cronkite for his bitterness and his fear to be fair and objective.

Podcast Host (38:33)

I mean, LBJ did not go public with this. It was a private phone call. But still.

Lindsay Chervinsky (38:38)

Well, I think Vietnam and as you mentioned, Watergate are real channels. Turning point because there is a growing conviction among the American people that the government were keeping secrets. It led to a real disintegration of public trust for institutions, for the Presidency and a sense among the press that it was their duty to uncover the facts and the stories that the government was keeping quiet. And certainly there were a lot of them in Vietnam. Certainly there were a lot of them during water years. GATE But I think it did fundamentally alter, as much as we've discussed many sort of shifts over the course of American history. It started a new shift in a much more antagonistic relationship between many of the major media institutions and the presidency, both in terms of trying to uncover information, but then also the president, in the case of LBJ and later Nixon and others, maybe not legally put pressure on some of these institutions, but personally put pressure not to expose information.

Podcast Host (39:39)

Yeah, if you're getting a call from the President of the United States who says, frank, this is your president and yesterday your boy shat on the American flag, referring to the television coverage of Marines burning down a village. Prior to this era, reporters believe what the government said, just as citizens did. Neil Sheehan's famous book about Vietnam deals with this issue as well. Official announcements or official press releases about what was happening in Vietnam. Reporters simply took them at their word until they realized, you know what? This is something not adding up here. Nixon.

Lindsay Chervinsky (40:14)

You could almost just, like, stop there, just say, you know, Nixon, period, he.

Podcast Host (40:18)

Wasn'T simply unhappy with press coverage. He waged a campaign privately.

Lindsay Chervinsky (40:22)

Yeah, he did. You know, I mean, prior to our more current moment, Nixon was really seen as the high watermark of hostility between the press and the presidency. And that also included the vice presidency because. Because Vice President Spiro Agnew was really tasked with attacking the press on behalf of Nixon. Nixon hated his press coverage more than any other president until perhaps recently. He certainly attacked the press publicly, but then he also attacked the press privately. He deployed a lot of the strategies we saw LBJ deploy in terms of sort of trying to use personal influence. But then he also tried to use things like. Like the FBI and other legal mechanisms to undermine the press, whether it was antitrust lawsuits or various other mechanisms, wiretapping, things like that. And a lot of it stemmed from this paranoia around what might come out in terms of past actions that would undermine his administration.

Podcast Host (41:20)

This was not an emergency situation. Allah, the civil war. This was Nixon's personal political agenda. And negative coverage, which the press has a right to publish negative information about what was happening in Vietnam. And then with Watergate, this was Nixon trying to save himself. You know, we'll wrap up here, Lindsay. I find that today it's never been more difficult to cover national politics for a number of reasons. It's not just about who happens to be in the White House today and his testy relationship with the news media. It's the media ecosystem itself and the expectations of the public.

Lindsay Chervinsky (41:56)

No, it is an incredibly difficult moment, and I think it's true for historians, too, especially someone like me who really wants to help people understand where we come from. That any sort of criticism, even if it's not inherently criticism, even if it's just facts about what history was before, we have at this moment, such a expectation of loyalty that allows for no nuance, wants that you cannot offer substantive feedback about someone without seeming partisan. That is a real problem because, you know, when I offer history, I don't have a partisan agenda. I have, of course, I have my own opinions, but I work really hard to keep them out of my historical work. But I can say what has happened before, what has not, what was supposed to happen based on the framer's expectations, what was not. And that's not me pursuing a partisan agenda. It's me offering up facts. But. But facts are now quite objectionable to a lot of people, depending on who's offering them and when.

Podcast Host (42:53)

And this problem exists across the political spectrum, as you can seek out news from any source you wish that caters to your feelings. We also live at a time when politicians can pick and choose which news outlets they want to speak to. On the next episode of history. And as it happens, it is the history of the conservative movement now at a crossroads. Or is it a crisis? From William F. Buckley to Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan to Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson. That's next with Damon linker and Dan McLaughlin as we report history as it happens.