Hendershot Podcast: When the News Broke

For the 130th episode of the Journalism History podcast, Author Heather Hendershot discusses her book, When the News Broke: Chicago 1968 and the Polarizing of America.

Transcript 

Heather Hendershot: Today we would say it went viral. You know, by the next few days, it was being shown across the country on local newscasts. It was- there were photos of it in newspapers. And, you know, people were just seeing all hell breaking loose in Chicago.

Teri Finneman: Welcome to Journalism History, a podcast that rips out the pages of your history books, to re-examine the stories you thought you knew and the ones you were never told. I’m Teri Finneman, and I research media coverage [00:00:30] of women in politics.

Nick Hirshon: And I’m Nick Hirshon, and I research the history of New York sports.

Ken Ward: And I’m Ken Ward, and I research the journalism history of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains.

Teri Finneman: And together, we are professional media historians guiding you through our own drafts of history. Transcripts of the show are available at journalism-history.org/podcast. This episode is sponsored by Taylor & Francis, the publisher of our academic journal, Journalism History.

[00:01:00] 1968: it was one of the most tumultuous years in U.S. history. But what isn’t talked much about is what a pivotal year it also was for journalism history. 

People today think accusations of liberal media are new and have created incorrect mythology that the era of Walter Cronkite was the golden age of journalism when everyone loved the press and thought it was fair.

But the climate for politics and media that exists today can tie back to one week in [00:01:30] August, 55 years ago. In August 1968, members of the Democratic Party gathered in Chicago to select their presidential candidate. But over 50 million households of viewers also saw chaos, protests, and violence on their television. And the reaction to it continues to echo into today.

In today’s episode, we discuss broadcast coverage of the 1968 Democratic National Convention with Heather Hendershot, author of [00:02:00] When the News Broke: Chicago 1968 and the Polarizing of America.

Heather, welcome to the show. You open the book with really important context, noting, “Americans are bad at history, but good at nostalgia.” It reminds me of a book called The Way We Never Were. Why did you want to write this book?

Heather Hendershot: Wow. (laughs) Well, of course we’re at a moment of crisis right now in terms of trust and confidence in the news [00:02:30] media. And I think you could tell that story about what’s going on by going back six or eight years, and looking at the rise of Trump and his followers, and coming up to where we are now with election denialism and so on, and QAnon.

Um, but I thought I could really tell a better story by going back over 50 years and looking at what I consider the sort of roots of this moment of attacking the media for liberal bias, so-called liberal bias. 

So, you know, before the Chicago [00:03:00] Democratic Convention in 1968, the idea that the mainstream media, news media, suffered from liberal bias was a position held mainly by – it was a regional idea, and it was a sort of fringe or extremist idea.

So if you were on the far right, which could be a really hardcore extremist, or someone more like a- the so-called legitimate right, like William F. Buckley Jr., you assume that NBC, CBS, and ABC News had a liberal slant.

If [00:03:30] you were a Southern segregationist who did not care for the TV news coverage of the civil rights movement, you said it was because there was a liberal bias. 

But the more general opinion across America was that newsmen, and it was mostly men at the time, sometimes made mistakes. But their sort of default setting was neutrality and that that was part of their professional code. 

Um, and after Chicago, that changed. And it was [00:04:00] because of Chicago itself, and the event, and how it was covered in the news; but it was also because of how – and I could go into this more later – but how certain people involved there sort of weaponized the idea of liberal bias, and used it as a political tool following the convention.

Teri Finneman: A lot of our listeners are college students. So set the stage to briefly remind them what major events happened in 1968 leading up to the chaotic Democratic convention in Chicago and what the political climate was like in the country at the time.

Heather Hendershot: [00:04:30] Wow. 1968 was a really (laughs) tough year. Um, you had the Tet Offensive early in January, or throughout that month, really. And heading into the next month as well, which basically was a series of battles in Vietnam that ultimately, technically, the U.S. won those battles. Okay?

But (laughs) the problem was that the president, President Johnson, really was sending the message that we were just about to win in Vietnam, [00:05:00] that we were ending – we were getting near the end of this whole thing. And Americans seemed to have a lot of faith in that idea. 

And the Tet Offensive showed that we were not about to win in Vietnam. That the Vietnamese really surged, really fought hard even got into the U.S. Embassy briefly in South Vietnam. That was a disaster for morale and for faith in the president, and faith in the idea that we were going to win in Vietnam. So that’s a huge issue in [00:05:30] 1968. 

You also have a series of uprisings, what people at the time sometimes called race riots, and that had gone back earlier, of course. There was the Watts uprising in 1965. There was real six weeks of looting and arson and so on in Detroit in ’67, and then you had a lot more of that in ’68. And particularly in April following the assassination of Martin Luther King [00:06:00] Jr., you have uprisings in, I believe it’s maybe 110 cities, including Chicago. 

And so America just seemed completely out of control at this point. Opinion has turned strongly against the war. And in addition to the assassination of Martin Luther King, you have Bobby Kennedy assassinated. And he had been a strong contender to be nominated for president, and he was the peace candidate at that time.

And, [00:06:30] Johnson had lost the support of the country, and decided not to run again. So his vice president, Hubert Humphrey, was running, but people had hoped that Bobby Kennedy could sort of stand up to Humphrey and be a peace candidate.

So, that gives you some sense of – of the chaos, the crisis, and the anxieties that people were feeling, heading into that convention by August of ’68.

Teri Finneman: So we have Lyndon Johnson not running for [00:07:00] president. Bobby Kennedy has been assassinated. And there’s ongoing disagreement within the Democratic Party about whether to support the Vietnam War and civil rights. 

This all as the major political players in the party are gathering at this convention in one place in Chicago to decide who to nominate for president. Talk about who the major broadcast journalists were who were assigned to cover this event. 

Heather Hendershot: Well, at CBS you had Walter Cronkite, who one of his nicknames was Uncle Walter. (laughs) [00:07:30] He was sometimes referred to as the most trusted man in America, and then at NBC, you had Chet Huntley and David Brinkley operating as a team doing the nightly news.

And ABC was a sort of lesser network. It was the underdog network at that time. And it did truncated coverage in Chicago. And so it’s not a huge player in my book, although there’s a lot of interesting things to say [00:08:00] about ABC. But the really big players are at NBC and CBS. 

And viewers are really devoted to mostly, to either Cronkite or Huntley and Brinkley. I’ve read lots and lots of, you know, letters that people sent to their favorite anchors, and they really had a sort of personal connection that they felt to each of these newscasters. So you were watching on one of those networks if you were watching the convention. 

And it’s important to add that if you were watching TV [00:08:30] in August of ’68, you were probably watching the convention. In other words, they were doing gavel-to-gavel coverage, from morning to night, on CBS and NBC, and all the other program was pre-empted. So it’s a really different media picture than what we have today. 

And I think that’s really important for anyone listening to this podcast who’s a college student, who grew up with the internet and with social media and has a sense of a very huge fragmented sort of niche field of [00:09:00] media interests and so on. This is an era of mass media, not niche media.

Teri Finneman: Covering this convention wasn’t easy for reporters since Chicago Mayor Richard Daley put in place strict rules to hamper how the media could cover this event. Talk about what some of those rules were and why he did that.

Heather Hendershot: Well, Mayor Richard J. Daley was a Democrat. His nickname was actually Mr. Democrat; (laughs) big booster for the party. Um, and [00:09:30] so that’s just useful context to understand heading into Chicago. It’s understand that it’s a sort of a Democratic town.

But Daley had a very adversarial relationship to media: both locally, in his town, in his local newspapers, and also nationally. He was very censorious. He would’ve liked to have kept all the reporters off the floor during the convention. But he wasn’t able to pull that off.

So instead he radically reduced the number of floor passes that they had, [00:10:00] which means they couldn’t get enough, you know, people in the floor to interview. It was hard to get enough camera operators on the floor and sound people.

Some people sort of skirted around that by using messenger passes. So you might have a major anchor or network newsman on the floor with a messenger pass, (laughs) which are, you know, basically people running notes back and forth. Because again, this is a moment, you know, long before cellphones, right? So you have to have people running around [inaudible 00:10:25], you know, sharing messages. So that was one way that he stymied coverage. 

[00:10:30] The biggest thing was that Daley did not settle on an electrical workers strike. And that electrical workers strike meant that they could not install enough new telephone lines for the convention to function properly. Again, we’re way before cellphones. People depend upon pay phones, and new lines had to be installed so you could pull off this convention. 

So he didn’t resolve [00:11:00] the strike, and that meant it made it harder for the delegates to communicate with each other, made it harder for them to strategize, and it made it very hard for the newsmen to operate.

And in particular, they couldn’t do live coverage in the streets. They could only do live coverage inside the amphitheater, and it was standard operating procedure to shoot outside of a convention hall to interview, you know, people in the streets or the candidates who didn’t come to the convention hall until they were nominated. So they’d be back in their hotels and you would be interviewing [00:11:30] candidates. You couldn’t do any of that live because of the electrical workers strike. 

So it was a real crisis for the journalists who kind of entered into this convention feeling censored before it even started. It was really tough on people’s sort of, um uh, you know, emotional states (laughs) heading in. And their professional sort of norms were already under fire before they even started the convention itself.

Teri Finneman: Yeah, so getting in a little bit more into the details of the environment at this event: outside the [00:12:00] hotel where the convention was being held, and all these Democratic politicians are gathered, there are hundreds of people protesting the Vietnam War, which had grown increasingly unpopular during Lyndon Johnson’s presidency.

Police and National Guard troops are everywhere. The first day of the convention ends with police not only attacking protesters, but also journalists who, with their bulky equipment and bright lights at the time, could not have been mistaken in the crowd as being anyone other than a journalist. 

The next day, Dan Rather is attacked inside [00:12:30] the convention hall. Later, some viewers wrote letters celebrating the attacks on journalists. 

We talked about earlier the mythology today that journalists back then were respected and beloved. So explain why there was this hostility to media then.

Heather Hendershot: Wow, it’s tough. So, just to even give more context about, you know, the numbers and people in the street, you had 10,000 protesters in town. You had 12,000 police on duty, 5,000 National Guardsmen that Daley had called [00:13:00] in before the convention even started. So usually you wait for the emergency to call the National Guard, but he already had the National Guard there. Then there was 1,000 Secret Service people and FBI agents. So you got about 18,000 security people versus 10,000 protesters. 

And then you’ve got the news people mixed in with all of that, and they’re wearing credentials, you know, hanging around their necks. They have press passes. And obviously if you’re holding a giant camera, and a lighting gig [00:13:30] rig, and maybe sound equipment, you’re a journalist. You’re not a protester who’s come into town.

Um, and as you noted in your question, they were being targeted by local police. You would turn on your lights to shoot some film, and the police would immediately break the light, so the hostility was really strong, was really real. And in certain ways, the police were just kind of acting on Mayor Daley’s wishes.

Now, there’s [00:14:00] no piece of paper in the Daley archives saying, “You should be – you should beat up journalists while they’re in town.” It’s more like it was understood that they were going to exert their authority, and they were going to show that they had total control in Chicago. And of course, the opposite happened. 

But, in a way you know, Daley is thinking as a Democrat, “How can I fight … the supporters of Richard Nixon are the law – he’s the supposed law and order candidate.” So Daley’s thinking, “Well, I can do law and order. I’m gonna show that I can keep my [00:14:30] town peaceful and under control.”

And he ends up, you know, keeping the peace, in his mind, by exerting total authority, which ends up being quite violent.

Teri Finneman: Things would get worse over the next few days. Let’s talk about the Battle of Michigan Avenue on August 28th, 1968, and what was happening outside of the convention hotel.

Heather Hendershot: Sure. So that’s probably the most famous moment of the whole convention. And with my book, I try to add in some more kind of famous moments and get past the mythological [00:15:00] moment of, like, “This is the key moment of the whole thing: the Battle of Michigan Avenue,” which is a really important moment, but a lot of other important things happened that I’d love to talk about. 

On Michigan Avenue, the police beat protesters for I can’t remember if it was 17 or 18 minutes straight. They just started going at them in the streets. And the cameras were there. It was one place where they had camera hookups outside the hotel, and they recorded the whole [00:15:30] thing.

And protesters were chanting, famously, “The whole world is watching!” Um, now a more accurate line would’ve been although less elegant as a protest slogan, “The whole world will be watching in three or four hours.” (laughs) Because it was not a live broadcast, as I said before, because of the electrical workers strike.

So, they’re beaten by police. There’s footage of them being stuffed into paddy wagons. That footage is then taken on motorcycle courier back to the amphitheater, where the convention is. [00:16:00] And it’s edited. And they add some voiceovers to some of it, and they put it on the air hours later.

And it really distressed American viewers when they finally saw that footage very late at night. And in the days that followed it was recycled. It would – today we would say it went viral. 

You know, by the next few days, it was being shown across the country on local newscasts. It was – there were photos of it in newspapers. And, you know, people were just [00:16:30] seeing all hell breaking loose in Chicago.

And when we look back on it today, it seems like, just straight up, “Oh, here’s evidence of police brutality. We have footage of police beating people who are not really fighting back. They’re – the people are unarmed. And it seems like evidence of police brutality.”

But at the time, a lot of people felt tremendous hostility: the so-called silent majority. Uh, you know, conservative, middle-class white Americans felt a lot of hostility towards war protesters, towards hippies, as they called them.

[00:17:00] A lot of people felt like the protesters got what they deserved, and didn’t understand it as damning evidence against police, but saw it as a sort of legitimate action against the protesters. 

Teri Finneman: You note that it took four years for American journalists to figure out that both-side-ism was boosting the voices of authoritarianism in the Trump administration. It took CBS News less than three days to reach a similar conclusion in Chicago in 1968. 

[00:17:30] Talk about the decisions these broadcasters made on how to cover the protests and police violence happening.

Heather Hendershot: Well, it’s a fascinating question. The newsmen at CBS, NBC, ABC, they really held back on showing a lot of the street violence for days. And in fact, the study afterwards that NBC did of its own footage found that three percent of their coverage had shown violence, and they estimated that about five percent of CBS coverage had shown [00:18:00] violence.

So, why did they show so little? And a lot of that had to do with professional norms at the time because a lot of the violence was against journalists. And journalists did not want to be the story. They wanted to tell the story.

Um, and, you know, they only started to tell the story when it became too big a story to ignore: this constant violence in the streets.

So, another reason they held back is that they felt like, “Well, we want to be fair to the city [00:18:30] of Chicago. It’s hard, you know, there’s been a lot of violence and chaos in cities all over America. All the cities have it tough. And we don’t want Chicago to feel like we were unfair to them during their convention. So we want to hold back and just show what’s happening at Convention Hall.” 

And of course, they didn’t really have the option of showing much in the streets because of the electrical workers strike. So they thought that that seemed fair. After a few days, they realized it was too big a story to ignore, and they started to cover it. 

And then they got a tremendous number [00:19:00] of phone calls and angry telegrams. Um, kids today don’t know what a telegram is. (laughs) I tell them it’s sort of like an email with a piece of paper. People used to, you know, send out a note that they pay for and someone would get it very quickly.

And so the networks were getting these telegrams all night. And, you know, Walter Cronkite actually had an interview with Mayor Daley the day after the Battle of Michigan Avenue to try to be [00:19:30] fair, and show his side, and it was a very bad interview. And Daley spread a lot of misinformation. It was a low point of Cronkite’s professional career. And, you know, he made a mistake in that interview. 

But he’d also started showing more footage of extreme violence, and understood that at a certain point, you don’t look for the other side’s perspective. At a certain point, there was right and there was wrong. And they wanted to show what was going on that was wrong.

And so they really kind of even [00:20:00] though as I describe it, there’s some vacillating, they did ultimately sort of hit this tipping point where they were like, “We’re just going to show what’s happening. We’re not going to assume that we need to do the police point of view.”

Teri Finneman: Despite showing the truth of police violence, mass hostility toward the mainstream media and accusations of liberal media bias began to take off, something that Richard Nixon would further exploit in the years ahead. Letters to CBS ran 11 to 1 against the network’s coverage of the convention protest.

[00:20:30] You talk about this a little bit already. But I was really interested that you ask this question in your book. What exactly made Chicago a tipping point moment for viewers crying, “Bias,” when the networks had already shown protests and violence on television before? What did you conclude was the answer?

Heather Hendershot: Yeah. That’s a tough one. There’s a lot of different ways to answer that, about what made this a tipping point moment. 

It was a kind of breaking point for a lot of people who already felt great concern and anxiety about what was happening [00:21:00] in America. You already have people feeling negative, even though they’re starting to turn against the war, they’re also turning against war protesters. 

Um, and I think for some people, there is there’s a lot of hostility against Black protests in America; the, you know, white middle Americans very concerned about Black protests in the streets. 

And to some extent, there’s a sort of conflation of these mostly white protesters in Chicago, but with that [00:21:30] Black movement. And to sort of feeling like all the protesters could be conceptually lumped together.

Um, that may sound far-fetched or a little strange, but the context for this is Mayor Daley, one reason he did so much security is because all of those street protests after the King assassination was just April, right? And this is August. And he thought, “This city might go up in flames.” Uh, which it had done in April, but it would be even worse in August.

So a [00:22:00] lot of his high heavy-handed security is because he’s afraid that Black people are gonna be out in the streets protesting. And the reality is that the Black locals and activists from out of town, you know, didn’t come in. They saw this as a largely sort of white event.

And a lot of the Black local political players, you know, went into hiding, or left town if they could. Because they knew that Mayor Daley’s police would literally round them up and put them in jail just for being in their homes if they were well-known political, you know, [00:22:30] Black activists.

So I think that for some home viewers, there was this sort of conflation of all of these different political forces in their minds, that led to a negative interpretation of what they were seeing. 

Another key issue is that Daley and President Nixon, as you pointed out, candidate Nixon and then President Nixon, went out of their way to say, “This was bias. You did not show how protesters provoked [00:23:00] police.” And people responded to this and bought the line that Daley and Nixon were promoting.

And the idea is: let’s say, you know, I’m a journalist. I’m holding up a camera. And I’m shooting footage, looking right at a crowd. And police are beating them. 

Basically, what Nixon and Daley and others are saying is, “Well, if you had just turned your camera left and right, instead of just shooting in this one spot, you would have shown a better picture. 

“You could have told the story better [00:23:30] by showing more imagery of protesters, say, throwing things at police, or cursing at police. And if you told a better story, we would have understood that this police violence was valid, was motivated.”

Um, and that’s a very different attitude from today, where people who say that news they don’t like is fake. They don’t say, like, “Well, newscasters just should’ve told the story better.” They say, “Oh, what they told is fake. That just never happened.”

No one said it in 1968, ” [00:24:00] Those images aren’t real. It didn’t happen.” They just said, “You told the story wrong.” Um, so that’s just a small answer to a really, (laughs) really big complicated issue about why this was a turning point. But I hope it gives you some idea.

Teri Finneman: You know, despite these accusations of bias you write that a number of stories weren’t covered during this convention, due to concerns by the networks that they would be seen as doing advocacy reporting, not being objective. So what wasn’t covered?

Heather Hendershot: Well, a key aspect [00:24:30] of what happened in the convention hall that was either not covered or was under-covered, or selectively covered, was issues of voting rights and social justice for people of color.

So, the part of the story that was covered was Julian Bond, who was a political player from Georgia, who was challenging the almost-all-white collection of delegates that Governor Lester Maddox, a very famous [00:25:00] segregationist governor at the time, had assembled and brought to Georgia – brought to the convention hall. 

And so you have Bond challenging those delegates and saying, “You know, there was no fair selection of delegates in Georgia. And we challenge that.”

But you also have Alabama making a challenge like that. Texas, North Carolina, many, many challenges by Black voters who had been disenfranchised, and didn’t have the option of being delegates in Chicago. 

And so, the networks covered the Bond [00:25:30] story in part because Maddox was known; he was famous. It was a good story, and I mean that in journalistic terms. But just kind of in narrative terms, you had this kind of unattractive governor who was a real character, who was a, you know, had always had a good sound bite.

And then you had this very attractive challenger who was very, very articulate, Julian Bond. And it was just a good story to tell. So they told it.

But they ignored, or very, very much underplayed, [00:26:00] these other stories that they should have covered. So they definitely made some mistakes inside the convention hall.

Teri Finneman: We’ve been talking about this highly publicized event. But before we wrap up, I really liked a side story that you included in this book, an invisible story about how CBS helped relatives of Vietnam veterans. Few people know about this since CBS never talked about it. And it just really illustrates all that journalists do to help the public that so many people don’t even know. Share [00:26:30] that story.

Heather Hendershot: I’m so glad you asked about that because it’s one of my favorite parts of the book. It’s something that people don’t ask (laughs) me about so much. Um, and it’s – it’s quite beautiful.

What I say in the book is I sort of frame it by thinking about what it means to trust media. And sometimes that can seem like a very policy, mechanical kind of thing. You know, if you don’t like the news, you won’t watch it; the ratings will go down. Or you can have things like the Fairness Doctrine in place to make sure everyone does a good job, and they’re trustworthy [00:27:00] and so on.

But there’s this other level of trust I call affective trust, and the feelings that people have for the journalists that they are watching on television. And you know, with Walter Cronkite in particular, people would send him, at CBS, photos of their babies watching him on TV. In fact, even watching the Democratic convention. Photos of their cats watching him on television. (laughs) 

Teri Finneman: (laughs) 

Heather Hendershot: One- (laughs) it’s crazy. One woman, a young six-year-old, I believe, she named her kitten Cronkite. And sent Cronkite a photo [00:27:30] of Cronkite the kitten. And he wrote back to her! He was so flattered and honored, you know? He did write back to a lot of people.

Um, but one of the most poignant sets of letters that you find in the archive, and here I’m drawing on papers at the Briscoe Center for American History at UT-Austin, which is a wonderful collection. They have Cronkite’s papers and they have the CBS papers – CBS News papers.

And it’s almost exclusively women, mothers, would write to Cronkite and say, ” [00:28:00] I saw my son on the news the other day. Um, you told a story about a battle. He died. And I saw his image. Or you read aloud dog tag numbers. And they were his dog tag numbers, and this is the last image I have of my son. Could you send me that footage?”

And Cronkite would generally answer personally. And he would forward the request to the basically the librarians for CBS; [00:28:30] you know, they would find the footage. Sometimes it was a lot of work, because sometimes the woman who’d written in, the mother, had gotten the date wrong or a detail wrong. Occasionally it wasn’t actually their son that they saw; you know, so they had to do some research.

But most of the time, they would find the footage and they would strike an extra copy of that footage and put it in the mail; 16-millimeter footage, right? This is long before video, you know, VHS tape or obviously, you know, [00:29:00] digital imagery, right?

So they would put the piece of film in the mail to people, and they would watch it at home on their 16-millimeter home movie projectors, and it was really quite beautiful, and CBS didn’t tell everyone that they did this. It was very organic. People just saw their kids on the news and wrote in, and hoped that they would get help. And they always got help.

And to me, it’s just one of the most beautiful stories about trust and sort of caring (laughs) in the world of news.

Teri Finneman: [00:29:30] And our final question of the show is: why does journalism history matter?

Heather Hendershot: Well, it’s a good question. I think there’s a general way to answer that, and then a more specific way.

A general way is to say, well, journalism history matters because history matters. (laughs) And of course, journalism is just one aspect of history. And to understand our present, we have to, you know, understand our past so that we, in theory, avoid making some of the same mistakes. And when we’re looking for solutions, maybe we can learn and not sort of reinvent the wheel. We can learn from [00:30:00] what worked in the past or what didn’t work in the past.

More specifically, journalism history is very important right now, as we are in a moment of journalistic crisis. That crisis is on so many fronts. Newspapers are just free-falling in decline. And it’s a real disaster. A very, very difficult situation for legacy media, like newspapers, right now.

With television, you’ve got cable news, which means a lot of left- [00:30:30] and right-wing-oriented news programming. And even I would go farther: I would say that a lot of the left programming is more sort of liberal, and the right-wing stuff is often extremist or authoritarian and quite dangerous.

And the point is, though, that both of these kinds of news have a strong point of view. And they’re often not really news; they’re opinion. So you – if you have to be on the air 24/7, you’re not doing news 24/7. And you’re not putting the resources into finding new things to report [00:31:00] 24/7.

A lot of that material is opinion. So people who get news that way are getting more opinion than news. And then if you get your news from, say, the traditional CBS, ABC, NBC, you’re actually getting more news that really (laughs) is news.

So this is just like a little tiny snapshot of all of the crises that news is facing right now, and I think it helps us a lot to look back and see what worked in the past, what didn’t work, what the professional norms were [00:31:30] and, you know, where in ’68, where they failed, and to see what we can learn from that, see what we can use from that without slipping into nostalgia.

Teri Finneman: All right, well, thank you so much for joining us today.

Heather Hendershot: Thank you so much for having me. It was great talking to you. 

Teri Finneman: Thanks for tuning in, and be sure to subscribe to our podcast. You can also follow us on Twitter @JHistoryJournal. Until next time, I’m your host, Teri Finneman, signing off with the words of Edward R. Murrow: “Good night, and good luck.”