AMERICAN JOURNALISM

2023, VOL. 40, NO. 1, 4–25

https://doi.org/10.1080/08821127.2023.2165576

ARTICLE

All the President’s Media: How the Traditional

Press Responded to New Communications
Technology Adopted by US Presidents
Ashley Waltera and Karlin Andersen Tuttleb
a
Journalism & Communication, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Utah State
University, Logan, Utah, USA; bDonald P. Bellisario College of Communications,
Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, USA

Both Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy mastered new forms of mass
media communications, ridding themselves of formal gatekeepers to commu-
nicate directly to US citizens. For Roosevelt, mastering radio airwaves would
allow him to navigate past traditional presidential rhetorical tropes and print
journalists’ interpretations of his presidential messages to speak directly to
the American public. For Kennedy, television meant advertising spots, late-
night talk show appearances, and hour-long specials with his family as a way
of pushing the medium beyond televised speeches in his campaigns. This
study attempts to understand how the traditional press reacted to these
unfiltered messages. Findings suggest that newspaper editorials and maga-
zine stories initially praised these men’s innovative approaches to new tech-
nology, but over time, legacy media became disillusioned as it began to view
presidential uses of new media as a nuisance that hampered legitimate
reporting.

In early October 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt concluded his

two-week, eight-thousand-mile train “inspection tour” of roughly a dozen
states. Robert “Bob” Trout was among the reporters crammed into the
private railcar parked in Cleveland, Ohio, waiting for the president’s final
address of the trip. While the radio lines were “synchronized” to broad-
cast Roosevelt’s remarks, Trout chronicled Roosevelt’s trip as a journey to
feel “the nation’s pulse” by touring a smattering of the country’s scenery
“from classic farm to ice-capped mountain, from forest park to giant
dams.”1 After just four minutes of speaking, Trout realized the cables
were not ready to transmit the president’s speech, and Trout had com-
pleted his prepared remarks. “There isn’t very much to do, in a situation

CONTACT Dr. Ashley Walter Ashley.Walter@usu.edu

ß 2023 American Journalism Historians Association
 AMERICAN JOURNALISM 5

like this, except just to wait and as matter of a fact to talk,” Trout con-
cluded with a chuckle. He continued,
I am sure you are all familiar with radio technique and I’m afraid if you’ll
practice long enough to realize that the second hand—the little
stopwatch—is the thing we all go by and when it hasn’t clicked to its
appointed time there’s nothing to do but keep talking in lieu of some other
noise—some more pleasant noise, like the drum and bugle corps, perhaps
outside at the station to while away the time until the last second does tick
by and the feature of the evening begins.2
After ninety seconds, Trout announced that the president was ready to
make his address. Roosevelt acknowledged, but quickly moved past, the
scheduled topic of the speech—current events—to encourage the
“excellently educated men and women” of the Northeast listening to take
“an intensive drive to get people to know their country better.”3 On face
value, the address can be understood as a general appeal to the public to
learn more about other Americans and the country’s geography. Yet, by
placing members of the educated and Northeastern class as characters in
his address that benefit from leaving their region, Roosevelt positioned
particular emphasis on the knowledge and experiences of those living in
the western US and those in the working class.
Taken as a whole, the recording demonstrates how Roosevelt used
radio to navigate past traditional presidential rhetorical tropes and print
journalists’ interpretations of presidential messages to speak directly to
the American public. The moments prior to Roosevelt’s speech, however,
also provide important insights into the new medium’s affordances and
challenges to traditional newsprint. The New York Times printed the
speech in full the following morning, but the transcript lacked additional
dimensions provided by radio.4 The printed transcript would not have
allowed readers to connect as audience members in the train car through
Trout’s vocal illustration and could not have caught Roosevelt’s biting
tone as he described a man educated through books rather than experien-
ces as “the most bigoted, narrow-minded, unsophisticated and generally
impossible person I ever met.”5 The president’s acceptance and appreci-
ation of radio allowed him to broadcast his passionate plea to listeners
unfiltered and in real-time. Despite navigating the potential of dead air
and bending to the will of the president and technology, radio news
made reprints of the speech in the Times old news.
Roosevelt was not the first US president to broadcast to the nation,
but his mastery of the medium is imprinted into history. Similar to
Roosevelt’s use of radio, John F. Kennedy was not the first US president
to address the nation over a new medium. Yet, Kennedy is remembered
for his innovative use of television throughout his years on the campaign
trail and in office. Through advertising spots, late-night talk show
6 A. WALTER AND K. ANDERSEN TUTTLE

appearances, and hour-long specials with his family, Kennedy pushed the
medium beyond televised speeches in both his senatorial race and presi-
dential campaign. Both men mastered a new communications medium,
ridding themselves of traditional gatekeepers to communicate in a more
direct and instantaneous way to US citizens. This study attempts to
understand how the traditional printed press, and public opinion as
reported by the press, reacted to unfiltered messages via new communica-
tions media.
To date, research has focused on Roosevelt’s radio use and Kennedy’s
television appearances, however, researchers have not looked at these phe-
nomena together in conjunction with editorial and news content. This
study threads these presidents’ use of media together into a broader his-
torical narrative to understand how the traditional press perceived new
communication techniques. The research question guiding this paper
asks: How has legacy media responded to US presidents adopting new
communications technology?
Since his 2016 campaign kick-off and until being banned from
Twitter in early 2021, Donald Trump’s Twitter use consumed both
media coverage and public opinion.6 A Pew Research study indicated
that even Trump’s supporters disapproved of his Twitter use.7
Journalism history could benefit from understanding how traditional
gatekeepers interpreted and received new communication technology in
the past as presidential administrations continue to adopt new mediums
for communicating messages to audiences. This study tracks multiple
shared themes across administrations that speak to both presidents’
early and effective adoption of new media, their desire to avoid news-
papers’ editorial control and speak directly to the public, and the pub-
lic’s response to the new communication style. Researchers collected
data and conducted a close reading of New York Times’ editorials and
Time magazine articles during the span of each presidency. The two
publications were chosen due to their national reputations and wide
circulation numbers.8

Presidential Radio’s Beginnings

Woodrow Wilson, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert
Hoover all experimented with radio as a method to communicate to the
American public. However, Roosevelt crafted his skills during his time as
governor of New York, which allowed him to enter “the presidency as an
experienced broadcaster.”9 Speaking from Albany, New York, as governor
in the late 1920s, he experimented with weekly addresses to develop his
distinct tone and speaking style.10 Understanding radio’s new physical
and psychological place in homes, Roosevelt asked his voters to respond
 AMERICAN JOURNALISM 7

to questions and provide feedback throughout his governorship.11 His

experimentation with radio as governor allowed him to step into the
presidency with established skills and an appreciation for radio’s ability to
link speaker and listener regardless of physical distance.
Entering the White House during the Great Depression, Roosevelt fre-
quently used radio addresses to explain his New Deal policies, gain sup-
port for his administration, and calm the nation’s fears. Before radio, the
established public speaking style relied on a “flamboyant style” of yelling
and exaggerated gestures that were both entertaining and necessary to
convey meaning to a large crowd without any audio amplification.12
Instead of transferring that stump speech style to radio, Roosevelt pre-
ferred to address the nation in a conversational and quieter tone that fos-
tered a more personal way of speaking.13 Roosevelt’s use of radio during
his twelve-year presidency is most commonly linked with his “Fireside
Chats.” In those few dozen addresses, Roosevelt addressed national emer-
gencies or topics he felt the public should be aware of and potentially act
in response.14 In viewing radio as a mediating force between the leaders
and the people, Roosevelt used the medium to explain how the federal
government was supporting Americans—and why they should trust the
new agencies and policies his administration was creating—along with
asking for the people to support his decisions.15 His appeal for public
support positioned voters as crucial actors in the country’s success and
the decision-making process of the government, and made listeners
“participants in a shared drama” and feel Roosevelt represented their
interests.16 The Fireside Chats seemed informal, but they were highly
choreographed and planned broadcasts.17 Roosevelt’s decision to brand
the speeches broadcast during times of immense national trial as Fireside
Chats rhetorically positioned the addresses within “an upward spiral of
hope.”18
While those talks remain the most studied aspect of Roosevelt’s rela-
tionship with radio, he also gave over eighty addresses that were not des-
ignated as Fireside Chats.19 Political science and rhetoric scholar Elvin T.
Lim asserts the chats should not be considered rhetorically different from
Roosevelt’s other addresses.20 Lim does not believe the Fireside Chats
were unimportant, but rather that the rhetorical mysticism around the
addresses lessened the importance of Roosevelt’s other speeches and
missed key connections between Roosevelt’s speeches during crises and
stump speeches.
Lim states listeners at the time were often too “captivated by the new
medium of radio” to understand the Fireside Chats as not an “evolution”
but a “transformation” of previous speech styles.21 Making that rhetorical
distinction made listeners miss the “anger and urgency” within the
speeches and “the same feelings of inhibition, indignation, and reaction
8 A. WALTER AND K. ANDERSEN TUTTLE

that motivated” Roosevelt and past orators to give public speeches. The
chats appeared to be a radically different rhetorical style because they
were delivered in a tone and volume akin to a conversation, yet this was
only possible through radio, which amplified the president’s voice when
past speeches required the speaker to shout to be heard by the crowd.
The medium made the difference, Lim argues, not the speaker’s methods.
Instead of a mass departure from past methods and rhetorical styles, Lim
views the Fireside Chats, and all of Roosevelt’s radio addresses, as
“another stage” in presidential rhetoric.22 It is important to note that Lim
does not diminish the connection Roosevelt fostered with listeners; if any-
thing, FDR’s connection with his radio audience provides more evidence
for the medium’s role in shifting how presidents reached the American
public. Prior to radio, the public could only hear the president’s speeches
or comments if they attended the address in-person. Newspapers often
published the speeches afterward, but the written versions lacked the ani-
mation, verbal inflection, and emotion that hearing spoken words pro-
vided. Radio offered all of those elements to listeners while also providing
speakers with an avenue to address multiple audiences in real-time
regardless of physical location. That concept was only furthered by televi-
sion, which combined the experience of hearing speech and seeing the
accompanying images, which helped viewers feel they were physically pre-
sent for the events on their screens.

Bypassing Traditional Media: Radio

Extant literature places the Roosevelt and Kennedy administrations in
opposition to the traditional press and argue both presidents used the
new communications technology of their time to circumvent print media.
Many of those arguments are based on a perceived disconnect between
politicians and the public mediated by the press. Scholars have argued
that the physical distance between many Americans and the White House
created a psychological distance that the affordances of radio and televi-
sion filled.23 The new technology available to Roosevelt and Kennedy
allowed the presidents to speak directly to the American public without
editorial influence.24
Reviews of Roosevelt’s relationship with the press points to his clear
distrust of newspaper editors and his assertion that eighty-five percent of
the editors disliked him.25 Roosevelt was also frustrated by the presenta-
tion of his New Deal policies in print, which quoted or cited experts
from a variety of fields to explain the legislation and its economic impact
on readers. Roosevelt felt those articles affected the public’s ability to crit-
ically comprehend information and presented a preformed opinion for
readers to passively accept. Combined with the newspaper editorial
 AMERICAN JOURNALISM 9

process, Roosevelt worried the public was not receiving “unfiltered” news
from any source.26 Historian Bruce Lenthall portrays Roosevelt as a wor-
ried steward of democracy, but Leonard Reinsch notes that throughout
Roosevelt’s presidency, print media “wielded considerable influence in
politics.”27 His turn to radio as a method to address the public without
editorial interference can be seen as a move that helped his policies as
much as it provided information. Roosevelt’s press team tackled radio as
a top strategy for broadcasting the president’s message and relied on
newspaper editorials, news articles, and feature stories along with the
hundreds of thousands of listener letters the White House received to
gauge the president’s performance.28 Roosevelt and his press secretary,
Steve Early, viewed radio as a way to explain administration policies, pro-
vide expert opinions on domestic and global issues, and leak flattering
information about the president. 29 NBC and CBS, understanding the
administration’s role in federal regulations, donated time to Roosevelt’s
planned addresses and accommodated last-minute requests, gave free
coverage to the New Deal legislation hearings in Congress, and hired cor-
respondents who were sympathetic to Roosevelt’s policies.30

Presidential Television’s Beginning

A decade after Roosevelt’s death, the presidency was introduced to a new
medium that created even stronger bonds between practitioners and audi-
ences. By the late 1950s, television news programs were experimenting
with Hollywood-style production methods to attract viewers with a mix
of information and entertainment. Accompanied by the advertising and
publicity agencies boom, politics was becoming infused with Hollywood
stars and new, high-budget strategic methods.31 Like Roosevelt, Kennedy
was not the first president to use television. In fact, Roosevelt addressed
the nation on television during the 1940 Democratic National
Convention (DNC).32 However, Kennedy was the first to truly incorpor-
ate it into the fibers of his administration. Kennedy’s recognition of the
new communications technology to effectively reach the public mirrored
Roosevelt’s reliance on radio by adapting where the public’s interest was
pulled and working around biased editorial influence. The Kennedy fam-
ily fortune enabled JFK’s campaign to use the expensive new platform,
but it was his charisma, knowledge of television production, and ability
to connect with viewers made him an expert in the medium.33 As a rela-
tively unknown candidate during his senate campaign in 1952, Kennedy
relied heavily on local television appearances to build familiarity with the
Massachusetts public.34 He then went on to host “Coffee with the
Kennedy’s” to appeal to women.35 Kennedy also leveraged the free publi-
city television news and pundit shows by appearing on local and national
10 A. WALTER AND K. ANDERSEN TUTTLE

programs and coverage of the 1956 Democratic National Convention in

Chicago.36
By the time the Kennedy and Nixon camps began discussing the
potential of televised debates, Kennedy’s campaign had built an extensive
and expensive television campaign. Nearly eighty percent of households
owned a television set and spent more leisure time watching television
than attending movies, which primed the audience to recognize Kennedy
based on their previous exposure to his campaign television spots.37
Similar to Roosevelt’s radio addresses, the debates were choreographed
and meticulously prepared broadcasts.38 While the traditional news press
was “disappointed by the first debate” due to its lack of direct exchanges
and discussions, the public was influenced by what they saw.39 A CBS
survey found fifty-seven percent of those polled felt the candidates’ per-
formances influenced their vote. Six percent of those polled would base
their decision on the debate performances and seventy-three percent of
those voters supported Kennedy after viewing the debates.40 While one
poll does not determine an election, the viewership numbers, reportedly
115 million for NBC and 120 million for CBS, reflected Kennedy’s earlier
prediction about television and politics—“it is definitely an asset in creat-
ing a television image people like and (most difficult of all) remember.”41
After the election, Kennedy continued to usher television into the daily
life of the presidency. One of the most significant changes was the use of
television to talk to the public from the White House. He accomplished
this with live, unedited press conferences, formal extended interviews
with television networks, and made-for-TV documentaries about his
presidency and national events. Those decisions not only made his
administration “a televised one” but provided the public an unprece-
dented level of access to the president.42
Previous presidents had experimented with televised press conferences,
including President Dwight D. Eisenhower, but their press teams edited
the footage before airing it to avoid releasing classified information, cor-
rect any errors, or remove exchanges that put the president in an unflat-
tering position. Press secretary Pierre Salinger believed Kennedy’s prior
experience with televised interviews would reduce the possibility of con-
frontational exchanges or missteps. For Salinger, the logistics and poten-
tial problems of live appearances were outweighed by the benefits of the
public hearing directly from the president.43 In the month after
Kennedy’s televised inauguration, he held the first live press conference.
Regularly scheduled televised press conferences were held throughout his
presidency with Kennedy establishing a format continued today—an
opening statement followed by questions from reporters. From the
administration’s side, the press conferences were highly produced to pre-
pare Kennedy and present his policies in the best light for reporters and
 AMERICAN JOURNALISM 11

the public. Kennedy was prepped before each appearance by studying a

range of current issues, practicing potential questions, and receiving an
additional brief just before appearing on air.44 Aside from explaining pol-
icy decisions and understanding current events, Kennedy maintained an
on-air style that appeared both friendly to reporters and capable of han-
dling difficult questions. CEO of Cox Communications and speech
advisor to politicians Reinsch called Kennedy’s interactions with reporters
“an indelible trademark—a quick reply, a ready smile, a gracious manner
that disposed of tough, irritating questions.”45 In her analysis of
Kennedy’s press conferences, communications scholar Judith Hoover
noted Kennedy’s ability to anticipate questions and rhetorically present
himself as “being wronged” if reporters asked a question he deemed “rude
or harsh.”46 Despite those on-air theatrics, media historian Mary Ann
Watson argued a “no more mutually beneficial arrangement could have
been developed than the live television press conference” in which televi-
sion networks gained prime access to the president and Kennedy received
the immediate attention of millions of American viewers without editorial
interference.47

Bypassing Traditional Media: Television

Kennedy shared many of the same concerns as Roosevelt about the bias
of the print news industry. While televised addresses and interviews were
still filtered through network journalists, Kennedy felt the medium could
more effectively reach a mass audience.48 Kennedy also understood the
medium shift in power and the potential to reach millions of households
with one broadcast rather than multiple newspapers that could portray
him in a variety of positive or negative positions.49 Communications
scholar Vito N. Silvestri notes that Salinger encouraged Kennedy to use
television to gain public support that newspaper reporters and editors,
whom Salinger said did not support Kennedy, could never achieve.50
Alongside edited documentaries, Kennedy appeared on television for mul-
tiple long-form interviews. In mid-December 1962, Kennedy and three
White House reporters, one from each network, gathered for a ninety-
minute interview on a range of domestic and international issues. While
the White House did not request editorial control, they required the net-
works to work together to edit the special and present it in identical
forms across all three networks. After the special aired, then-Washington
Bureau chief for Newsweek and future executive editor of the Washington
Post, Benjamin Bradlee, called Kennedy to congratulate him on the suc-
cessful appearance. Kennedy reportedly told Bradlee, “Well, I always said
that when we don’t have to go through you bastards, we can really get
our story to the American people.”51
12 A. WALTER AND K. ANDERSEN TUTTLE

Yet, Kennedy and key members of his administration understood the

delicate balance between the affordances of television and snubbing print
reporters. Before introducing regular televised press conferences, Press
Secretary Salinger met with newspaper reporters to introduce the idea
and gauge their reaction. Reportedly, after Salinger explained that some
format changes may be required, a print reporter yelled, “If you are going
to throw in that big video tape machine for each network, there is not
going to be any room for any of us little old reporters to do our work.”52
President Eisenhower previously held televised press conferences in the
White House, but the frequency and scale that Kennedy’s press conferen-
ces became required a larger venue. An eight-hundred-person auditorium
in the State Department was renovated with new furniture and carpeting,
a special platform to hold two television cameras, six newsreel cameras,
and photographers. Instead of sitting at a desk at floor level with report-
ers as Eisenhower did, Kennedy stood at a custom-built presidential lec-
tern, featuring a fifteen-inch presidential seal, placed at the front of the
room. Following final lighting and sound adjustments, Kennedy walked
on stage thirty seconds after cameras started rolling to allow reporters to
introduce audiences to the press conference and build anticipation.53
However, those behind-the-scenes tensions amid the adoption of new
technology did not appear in print coverage. Anecdotal and first-hand
evidence suggests both presidents appreciated the ability to avoid editori-
alizing by conservative print media, but New York Times editorials and
Time articles did not support the narrative that the printed press felt
bypassed or brushed aside by Roosevelt or Kennedy. If they did feel this
way, it was not explicitly expressed. In fact, initially, print media was
often impressed and supportive of the presidents’ new communications
use. Furthermore, press conference transcripts following Roosevelt’s radio
speeches show that newspapermen did not even bother to bring up his
radio use.54

High Praise From Traditional Media

The news articles collected for this research show that print publications
initially praised both Roosevelt and Kennedy for their media usage by
print publications. Both their delivery and mastery of the medium was
considered top-notch as New York Times editorials and Time articles
marveled at the novel use, not initially recognizing that it changed the
nature of their own jobs. The traditional press praised the presidents’
delivery, skills, charm, and syntax, and each were viewed as masters of a
new medium. However, Roosevelt was lauded significantly more than
Kennedy.
 AMERICAN JOURNALISM 13

Most Time articles praised Roosevelt’s radio use. One Time article
commented that “His smooth round voice was as vibrant as ever with
self-confidence and good hope. He asked resounding rhetorical questions
to which the answers, at least until the next election, seemed inevitably to
be ‘yes.’”55 New York Times’ editorials also expressed delight about the
man and the medium: “As a whole, Mr. ROOSEVELT’s latest radio
appeal was highly successful both in conception and delivery. He has an
extraordinary skill in placing himself on easy and intimate terms with his
listeners-in … [he] has before shown he knows how to play with a fine
technique.”56 In a 1933 address about bank openings, a Times editorial
heralded Roosevelt’s easy-to-understand explanation about the benefits of
banking and stated that “the President’s use of the radio for this purpose
is a fresh demonstration of the wonderful power of appeal to the people
which science has placed in his hands. When millions of listeners can
hear the President speak to them, as it were, directly in their own homes,
we get a new meaning for the old phrase about a public man ‘going to
the country.’”57 Many early editorials expressed flowery adoration, like
this 1935 article:
The President ‘went on the air’ again Sunday night, and once more showed
his mastery of that medium of appeal to the people. His tone and manner
were as near perfection as any one can come over the radio. He was
friendly, composed, ingratiating. The whole address was like that of a man
quietly sitting down with his neighbors to talk over matters of deep
concern to them as well as to himself. He confirmed the general conviction
that no politician of his time equals him in the adroit use of this means of
approach to his fellow- citizens all over the land. The greatest campaigners
and advocates of other days would gasp with astonishment if they could
come back and see their audiences of three or four thousand people
transformed into groups of listeners that may easily have numbered ten or
twelve millions. The invention has wrought enormous changes in our
political life.58
Even articles that offered a small critique of political radio usage ended
up vehemently commenting on Roosevelt’s mastery. For example, a June
19, 1939, Time article stated, “Since radio became the No. 1 U. S. political
hustings, politics has been no place for a marble mouth.”59 The article
then went on to report Radio Guide’s rankings of the “seven favorites” of
the 1940 presidential race and rated each candidate’s radio skills. FDR
won first place with a ninety-seven percent favorable rating, stating,
“voice quality excellent, delivery excellent, mannerisms good, poise
excellent.”60 He received two softened critiques: “‘His Harvard accent …
would alienate him at once from the common man were it not overcome
by the deep sincerity of his radio presentation.’ [His] Only other notice-
able blemish: the phrase ‘My friends,’ which ‘now seems like a radio
14 A. WALTER AND K. ANDERSEN TUTTLE

trick.’”61 Roosevelt’s six competitors were all rated below him, with the
lowest receiving an eighty-three percent.
To be sure, the novel aspect of these new media played a role in the
traditional press’ response. A 1933 New York Times editorial stated that
FDR’s first broadcast as president would await an eager and large audi-
ence. And that it was “difficult to recall any recent event more exciting
than that one would be when the President hooks up the American peo-
ple to listen to [what] he has to say to Congress.”62 Following Kennedy’s
first televised press conference, a 1961 Times editorial stated that not only
was it a useful political tool for government at large, but also a tool for
“public education” regarding government processes. “The nationally tele-
vised press conference can be of tremendous service in bringing the
Government a little closer to the people,” it stated.63 Here one can see an
excited response from traditional media, despite these politicians attempt-
ing to work around them. Full of flattery, the editorial went on to note,
“Among the millions of people who saw President Kennedy demonstrate
last night his mastery of the technique of television, his remarkable range
of information on public issues, and his quiet command of grammar and
syntax … ”64 Additionally, he received praise from Time for his “near-
flawless skills.”65 At Kennedy’s sixth press conference in March 1961 a
reporter asked the president:
I am sure you are aware, sir, of the tremendous mail response that your
news conferences on television and radio have produced. There are many
Americans who believe that in our manner of questioning or seeking your
attention that we are subjecting you to some abuse or a lack of respect. I
wonder, sir, in this light, could you tell us generally your feelings about
your press conferences to date and your feelings about how they are
conducted?66
To which the president joked, “Well, you subject me to some abuse, but
not to any lack of respect,” which was met with a room full of laughter.
Kennedy then went on to say that he liked how things were running, and
suggested keeping news conferences unchanged. It seems as if the
reporter was looking to Kennedy to convince the public that the press
were asking questions in good faith. This excerpt shows the press and
president teaming up together in defense of the televised press conferen-
ces. This is the only time that a reporter asked the president about his
relationship with television at any of his press conferences.
The American public also responded well to these public addresses. In
1939, Roosevelt’s broadcasts pulled in thirty-eight percent of Americans.
Addresses during times of crisis had even greater listenership, with sev-
enty-nine percent of Americans listening to his address following the
bombing of Pearl Harbor. Even though radio is a one-way communica-
tions medium, listeners expressed their affection for and support of
 AMERICAN JOURNALISM 15

Roosevelt by bombarding the White House with letters. According to

Lenthall, Roosevelt received four times as much mail per capita as any
previous president.67
In a letter to the editor titled, “Joost Lika Babe Ruth,” A.G. Winkler of
New York City wrote about a conversation between himself and his bar-
ber, Mike, following Roosevelt’s address. Mike, who hosted a “ghastly
accent,” allegedly said, “‘Ja hear Rosavelt? … Joost lika Babe Ruth. Some
time hita ball; some time strike out. Just do his best.’” Winkler deduced
that “It was probably the first time in the 18 years that Mike has been in
the U.S. that the President has said anything he could understand.”68
This anecdote was used by editorials to showcase how widespread
Roosevelt’s broadcasts were regarding audience, in addition to showing
how palatable they were. Likewise, following Kennedy’s August 6, 1961,
televised addresses, he was flooded with tens of thousands of letters and
telegrams from all over the country, yet, the traditional press padded their
flattery with cynicism about his reliance on television and the potential
for the president to manipulate viewers.

A Potentially Dangerous Tool

The newfound ability to mold public opinion combined with the public’s
strong allegiance to Roosevelt created worries within American politics,
including from FDR, that radio’s unchecked influence could be easily
abused.69 Herbert Hoover and other politicians, according to Lenthall,
chastised Roosevelt’s administration for using radio as a propaganda
machine.70 Whether viewed as propaganda or effective communication,
radio addresses offered Roosevelt and his listeners a tool to “overcome
the failures of existing media and learn about the public life of their mass
society.”71 For Roosevelt, who was concerned about the public perception
photographs of his physical disabilities would cause, the new audio-only
medium offered a communication medium that he could use to control
his image and access without interference from the traditional press.72
Before announcing his campaign for president, Kennedy reflected on
the potential benefits and pitfalls television creates for the democratic
process in TV Guide.73 The unprecedented access and level of psycho-
logical closeness to televised events was not lost on Kennedy. Greater
access, he warned, would come with increased scrutiny of political candi-
dates, but would hopefully create greater transparency to the nomination
process so party leaders could not select “an unknown, unappealing or
unpopular [candidate] in the traditional ‘smoke-filled room.’”74 While
politicians could manipulate how they appeared in past media, a politi-
cian’s “image” and presence on television could not be faked and a poor
first impression could turn viewers against a candidate.
16 A. WALTER AND K. ANDERSEN TUTTLE

The traditional press also expressed concern that these powerful media
were dangerous when used as political tools. For example, a 1962 Time
article viewed Kennedy’s stardom, brought about by television, as a kind
of cult. The article quoted mass communications researcher and Roman
Catholic nun, Sister Mary Paul Paye, who stated, “The American public is
exposed to a dangerous phenomenon: the personality cult of the
President. I protest—vehemently, vigorously, apolitically and almost
alone.”75 Paye went on to cite specifically her issues with:
The suppression or the obscuring of significant news; the amassing by the
President of personal power; and—most insidious of all—the irrational
worldwide identification of him with the country as a whole … Mr.
Kennedy has become synonymous with the U.S.; his victories are American
victories; his health, American health; his smile, his family, his hobbies, his
likes and dislikes, become symbolic of the country. For all this, says Sister
Mary Paul, the press is largely to blame.76
Paye also noted that this blinding adoration came at a cost to more sig-
nificant news. She urged newspaper editors, and the public, to question
Kennedy’s powerful use of the medium as a political tool and reminded
readers that Kennedy was indeed a politician, not a “movie star.”77
New York Times’ editorials also expressed concern about both
Roosevelt and Kennedy’s media mastery. However, it remained less crit-
ical than the Time example above. One New York Times editorial wrote
that many people were concerned that the “exploitation of modern mass
communications unbalances the political system.”78 However, these edito-
rials were primarily concerned with mass communication tools being
used by the wrong person. For example, a 1933 editorial stated: “A won-
derful new political instrument is placed in the hands of the President of
the United States. He might use the radio to agitate or inflame. In the
hands of an unscrupulous demagogue it might become a public dan-
ger.”79 Almost thirty years later, the New York Times wrote similar words
regarding Kennedy: “The possibility that this powerful medium might be
used for mere theatrics is of course always present; but it is doubtful that
demagogues could stand up for long under television’s bright lights with-
out exposure, especially under the hammering of expert newsmen.”80
While the New York Times during Kennedy’s administration was more
hopeful than they seemed during Roosevelt’s tenure, the paper still con-
veyed their similar concern about the power of the medium.

Disillusionment
What started as reverence, over time, faded into disillusionment. The
traditional press slowly started to view presidential new media use as a
nuisance that hampered legitimate reporting. While traces of this can be
 AMERICAN JOURNALISM 17

seen slightly later in Roosevelt’s presidency, it is explicit in coverage

regarding Kennedy. By claiming that productions had become a spectacle,
traditional media framed articles and editorials to question the legitimacy
of the medium and framed it as a nuisance. By late 1961, the New York
Times printed, “In his dealings with the press, President Kennedy has
broken every rule in the book and got away with it.”81 It went on to state
that he “does as he pleases and is creating a whole new set of ground
rules in the process.”82 Two years later, a New York Times editorial heav-
ily criticized the administration’s choice to release a made-for-TV docu-
mentary about Kennedy’s stance on civil rights, fervently stating that “it
is improper to make a stage-show of the inside processes of
Government.”83 In Time’s last article covering Roosevelt’s radio usage,
they commented on the spectacle of some radio addresses and their lack
of substance. For example, a 1943 piece reviewed an address with
Roosevelt and then-Mexican president Manuel Avila
Camacho. It stated,
“Then they rose to address their countries by radio. Their speeches were
filled with Good Neighborliness, but nothing much else.”84 Here the art-
icle acknowledged that the useful political tool had morphed into a device
to conduct meaningless media stunts.
While this disillusionment occurred later in Roosevelt’s presidency,
Kennedy’s television use was posited as a nuisance early on in his presidency.
In an article discussing JFK’s televised inaugural address and US-Russia rela-
tions, Time wrote, “[Nikita] Khrushchev figures that he will get a summit
meeting with Kennedy not because of how much or how little he smiles but
simply because the sheer weight of Russia in today’s world makes a summit
meeting necessary sooner or later.”85 By commenting on smiling, the publi-
cation nodded at Kennedy’s ability to capture American hearts by his charm
alone. This, in turn, posited television as a pandering political tool.
Just three months into Kennedy’s presidency, Time published an art-
icle titled, “J.F.K. & the Conference,” which described newsmen’s com-
plaints about the large-scale production of his press conferences.86 While
the piece opened with flattery at the president’s “near-flawless skills,” it
soon turned sour by pointing to an overly polished persona: “He arrived
well briefed on questions he was likely to be asked. He adroitly parried
embarrassing queries, and he projected an image as a crisp and incisive
leader. Indeed, most veteran Washington newsmen agree that in his press
conference techniques Kennedy has never had a presidential equal. Yet
among those same newsmen, there is an increasing sense of dissat-
isfaction.” The article went on to state that press conferences with 300
journalists “result in confusion,” which the American public could view
from their own couches.87 The article also noted: “As viewed on the
nation’s T.V. screens, the reporters’ clamor for presidential recognition
sometimes seems riotous.” Alluding to the spectacle and nuisance, many
18 A. WALTER AND K. ANDERSEN TUTTLE

journalists interviewed feared that reporters were “plainly overcome by

the possibilities for personal publicity in the televised conference.”88
Robert J. Donovan, Washington bureau chief of the New York Herald
Tribune, was quoted as saying, “By accommodating television, Mr.
Kennedy has robbed the presidential press conference of much of its best
flavor. The intimacy between the President and the reporter has been
diluted by distance. The President may find in the long run that televi-
sion may not be such a good idea after all. Accessibility of the President
is fine, but the presidency must not become commonplace.”89 New York
Post Capital Correspondent William V. Shannon, stated that Kennedy’s
press conferences were “like televising a locker room after a World Series
game. Superficially, nothing has changed. But the spontaneity is gone;
180 million people have suddenly become players in the game.”90
Journalist and critic Walter Lippmann observed:
The President makes announcements and the correspondents ask him
questions in order to get stories, perhaps even scoops. That is, I believe, a
basically false conception of why it is worthwhile to have the President
submit himself to questions from the press. The real use of the presidential
press conference is to enable the President to explain his policies and, if
necessary, to compel him to explain them … President Kennedy, with all his
political genius, is not yet in full effective communication with the people.91
In another article, titled, “The Show-Biz Conference,” Time likened
Kennedy’s press conferences to the ritualization process of an opening
show—full of off-stage preparation, anxious showmen (reporters), and an
eager audience.92 Yet, this ritual, the article argued, was becoming too
scripted, and void of any true meaning: “For the next half-hour, the show
proceeded as predictably as if Kennedy and the assembled newsmen were
following a script—as they might well have been.”93 It went on to state,
“For reporters, the press conference simply ain’t what it used to be. It is
now show biz.” As for reporters, their roles were “serving as little more
than props.”94 The article decided, “The press increasingly feels itself to
be accessory to an act, rather than a participant in a drama.”
Kennedy’s television reliance was regularly compared to Roosevelt’s
radio use—often for the worse. The fact that Roosevelt’s radio addresses
were also staged events was lost on many newsmen. Time juxtaposed
Kennedy’s large-scale productions to Roosevelt’s intimate media gather-
ings: “Part of the problem lies in the changed press conference format. In
Franklin Roosevelt’s day, the press conference, held in the President’s
own office, amounted to an informal chat with a handful of regular
White House reporters … Jack Kennedy’s conferences are full-scale pro-
ductions, held in a vast new auditorium and often televised live.”95
Another Time article stated, “Gone is the easy, intimate banter of the
F.D.R. days, when a hostile questioner might be told to go stand in the
 AMERICAN JOURNALISM 19

corner. Gone are the folksy chats and bursts of temper of the Truman
era. Gone are the improvisations (often complex in their syntax) of the
Eisenhower day. Kennedy has efficiently expanded on his predecessors’
skill practice sessions.”96 Reporters lamented that the well-curated brief-
ings were controlled down to the very questions that were asked. Even
worse, they said, some journalists were in on the charade. A Time article
noted that some reporters “had already tipped to raise questions that the
President wants to answer. Last week, for example. Salinger suggested to
A.B.C.’s William H. Lawrence that a certain question might get an inter-
esting response. Lawrence accordingly asked about the relative power of
U.S. and Soviet nuclear tests. Kennedy had a ready answer to that one—
neatly organized on paper.”97 This exposed networking, between adminis-
tration and reporter, lead the reader to question the authenticity and
legitimacy of the entire communication.
Interestingly, both journalists and the president himself had become
disenchanted by the process. When asked if Kennedy disliked the confer-
ences, he responded, “‘Well, I like them.’ he began; then he added hesi-
tantly: ‘Sort of.’”98 Perhaps the reason for his distaste was the “badgering”
he would receive from the few outliers who saw an opportunity for lime-
light. These reporters would go off script and were accused of looking for
stardom. In an act of self-reflexivity, one New York Times editorial asked,
“[H]as the White House press corps caught up with the technological
advancements that television represents?”99 It went on to criticize report-
ers who acted like “prosecuting attorn[ies]” and implored journalists to
ask “better questions” with “less emotion.”100

Conclusions
While Roosevelt’s radio use was praised both by the traditional press, pub-
lications—as can also be seen with Kennedy’s use of television—began to
become disillusioned by presidential adoptions of new media, viewing it as
a nuisance. During Kennedy’s administration, the press grew frustrated by
the pageantry and production in televised press briefings. By framing new
communications as a spectacle, the traditional press questioned the entire
legitimacy of the new(er) media. Despite concerns about the new media,
both presidents were admired for their successful adoption of the latest
technologies. CBS News reporter Bob Schieffer said it well when he stated,
“The best politicians were the masters of the dominant medium of their
time … Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first to recognize the power of
radio; Kennedy was the absolute best at television.”101
The same was initially said of President Donald Trump’s Twitter use,
who, at the time of this writing, was just reinstated to Twitter after being
banned for inciting violence on January 6, 2021. He remains banned on
20 A. WALTER AND K. ANDERSEN TUTTLE

Facebook and Instragram.102 To date, news organizations—including the

New York Times and Time—have published thousands of articles and edito-
rials addressing Trump’s favored mode of communicating to the American
public. On November 2, 2019, the New York Times published an interactive
online article titled, “How Trump Reshaped the Presidency in Over 11,000
Tweets.”103 The article, which examined 11,887 tweets since Trump’s inaug-
uration, wrote, “When Mr. Trump entered office, Twitter was a political
tool that had helped get him elected and a digital howitzer that he relished
firing. In the years since, he has fully integrated Twitter into the very fabric
of his administration, reshaping the nature of the presidency and presiden-
tial power.” Speaking to how Trump used the medium drastically different
than President Obama, the first US president to tweet while in office, the
Times wrote, “This is governing in the Trump era. For President Barack
Obama, a tweet about a presidential proposal might mark the conclusion of
a long, deliberative process. For Mr. Trump, Twitter is often the beginning
of how policy is made.” The medium has indeed become the message.104
While the popularity of social media could serve as an argument
against the importance of traditional media, the New York Times’ deep-
dive demonstrates, the traditional press remains a necessary and adaptable
presence. The New York Times’ article both synthesized the content of
Trump’s tweets and provided an analysis to identify patterns and trends
that the average Twitter user would not have the time or resources to
examine. Or, in the language of the New York Times in 1961, this kind of
coverage still relies on “the hammering of expert newsmen.”105
Furthermore, Twitter is also populated by journalists and news organiza-
tions, in addition to politicians.
Radio, television, and now Twitter, revolutionized the relationship
between presidents and the press with the new immediacy each technology
brings to the sharing and spreading of information. The traditional print
press is often unable to keep up with the speed and access to the American
public that Twitter now affords. Yet, that immediacy can bury stories that
require an extended reporting timeframe, in-depth analysis, or contextual-
ized commentary. Although Twitter has received unprecendented criticism
in the wake of business magnate and investor Elon Musk’s new ownership
in 2022, the prevalence of direct communication used via new technology
is unlikely to end—even if Twitter is reimagined, or ultimately replaced by
another newer medium. Debates surrounding how social media fits into
the larger news media landscape are the current iteration of tensions and
discussions that all new media, including radio and television, have
encountered. While Roosevelt initially received high praise from editorials
for his radio use, the press eventually became disillusioned by Kennedy’s
turn to television. Today, presidential social media use takes its turn in the
hot seat. Yet, as Trump’s 2021 social media bans and this project’s analysis
 AMERICAN JOURNALISM 21

of the complex relationship between print, radio, and television show, new
media is not limitless. To use the words of the 1961 Time article, perhaps
even “show biz” has its limits.106

Notes
1. Robert Trout and Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Radio Address to Herald
Tribune Forum,” CBS, New York City, NY: October 5, 1937, https://
catalog.archives.gov/id/27500307.
2. Trout and Roosevelt, “Radio Address.”
3. Trout and Roosevelt, “Radio Address.”
4. Associated Press, “The President’s Speech,” New York Times, October 6,
1937.
5. John Woolley and Gerhard Peters, “Radio Address to the Forum on
Current Events,” The American Presidency Project, University of California
Santa Barbara, n.d., https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/radio-
address-the-forum-current-events.
6. In mid-November 2022, Elon Musk reinstated Donald Trump to Twitter,
although, at the time of this writing, it remains to be seen if he will rejoin.
7. “In their Own Words: Likes and Concerns about Trump,” Pew Research
Center, August 29, 2017, https://www.people-press.org/2017/08/29/2-in-
their-own-words-likes-and-concerns-about-trump/.
8. Specifically, 343 articles were collected, and then narrowed down to sixty-
four articles. Twenty-four New York Times editorials and eight Time
articles were chosen for Roosevelt from March 4, 1933-April 12, 1945
and nineteen New York Times editorials and ten Time articles for
Kennedy from January 20, 1961 to November 22, 1963. While these
two publications were chosen because of their large circulation numbers,
they also reveal how national newspaper leaders felt about new technology
adoption. Future research should examine regional press to see how that
coverage compares to the findings in this paper.
9. Betty Houchin Winfield, FDR and the News Media (Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 1990), 104.
10. Bruce Lenthall, Radio’s America: The Great Depression and the Rise of
Modern Mass Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 88.
11. Inventors, hobbyists, and the US military had been developing radio
technology since the late 1800s, but it was not until the 1920s that radio
became available to American consumers. The establishment of NBC and
CBS stations across the country and the availability of radio sets in
department stores propelled the growth and popularity of radio across the
country. By 1930 over 13 million radio receivers had been sold including
larger sets that were decorative and functional pieces of furniture. See Noah
Arceneaux, “The Wireless in the Window: Department Stores and Radio
Retailing in the 1920s,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 83, no.
3 (2006): 581-595; David Michael Ryfe, “Franklin Roosevelt and the Fireside
Chats,” International Communication Association 49, no. 4 (1999): 89.
12. Lenthall, Radio’s America, 88.
13. Doris Goodwin, “FDR’s Fireside Chats,” Media Studies Journal 14, no. 1
(2000): 76.
22 A. WALTER AND K. ANDERSEN TUTTLE

14. The label “Fireside Chats” was a term later applied to some of Roosevelt’s
speeches leading to a disagreement among scholars over what distinguishes
the chats and how many Roosevelt gave. Most scholars agree that twenty-
five to thirty-one of his addresses deserve that designation and he gave
about three a year. See Elvin T. Lim, “The Lion and the Lamb: De-
Mythologizing Franklin Roosevelt’s Fireside Chats,” Rhetoric and Public
Affairs 6, no. 3 (2003): 441-442.
15. Lenthall, Radio’s America, 125.
16. Goodwin, “FDR’s Fireside Chats,” 76.
17. David Greenberg, Republic of Spin: An Inside History of the American
Presidency (New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, 2016), 190.
18. Greenberg, Republic of Spin, 191.
19. Lim, “The Lion and the Lamb,” 441.
20. Winfield, FDR and the News Media, 105.
21. Lim, “The Lion and the Lamb,” 452.
22. Lim, “The Lion and the Lamb,” 455.
23. Lenthall, Radio’s America, 119.
24. For more on traditional press and public reactions to new technology, see,
Noah Arceneaux and Amy Schmitz Weiss, “Seems Stupid until You Try It:
Press Coverage of Twitter, 2006-9,” New Media & Society 12, no. 8
(December 2010): 1262–79; Luke Fernandez and Susan J. Matt, Bored,
Lonely, Angry, Stupid: Changing Feelings about Technology, from the
Telegraph to Twitter (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019);
Wiebe Bijker, Thomas Hughes T, and Trevor J. Pinch, The Social
Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and
History of Technology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987); Catherine
Covert, “We May Hear too Much: American Sensibility and the Response
to Radio, 1919–1924,” in Mass Media Between the Wars: Perceptions of
Cultural Tension 1918-1941, edited by Catherine L. Covert and John D.
Stevens (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1984), 199–219; Daniel J.
Czitrom, Media and the American Mind: From Morse to McLuhan (Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982).
25. Lenthall notes the figure Roosevelt relied on was exaggerated beyond the
actual percentage, but most newspapers did oppose Roosevelt throughout
his terms. During elections newspaper editorials overwhelmingly supported
his opponents despite Roosevelt retaining high levels of voter support.
However, voters did not agree with the president’s number either. Lebovic
acknowledges the public understood press biases existed but, according to
a Gallup poll, about 75 percent of those polled “believed papers were fair
to the administration between elections, and 50 percent of FDR voters
through the press had been fair to the president in the 1940 election.”
Lenthall, Radio’s America, 99. Also see Lebovic, 72.
26. Lenthall, Radio’s America, 99-100.
27. Reinsch, Getting Elected, 17.
28. Greenburg, Republic of Spin, 191.
29. Lenthall, Radio’s America, 90; Ryfe, “Franklin Roosevelt,” 90.
30. CBS hired one of Roosevelt’s classmates from Harvard and NBC hired
Steve Early’s brother-in-law. Betty Houchin Winfield, FDR and the News
Media (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1960), 109.
 AMERICAN JOURNALISM 23

31. Kathryn Cramer Brownell, Showbiz Politics: Hollywood in American Political

Life, (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, 2014), 159-161.
32. FDR Library, “Television, FDR and the 1940 Presidential Conventions,”
Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, July 28, 2020,
https://fdr.blogs.archives.gov/2020/07/28/television-fdr-and-the-1940-
presidential-conventions/.
33. Kennedy’s relationship with mass media can be traced to his experiences
as a young adult working as a special United Nations correspondent to
the Hearst Newspaper chain after serving in World War II. While he only
worked for for Hearst for a year, Kennedy established a connection with
and understanding of the industry that he carried throughout his
presidency. Kennedy viewed himself as a “colleague of the press” who
provided the news media with information in a mutually beneficial
manner. Joseph P. Berry, John F. Kennedy and the Media: The First
Television President (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1987), 2.
34. Consumer access to television began in the 1940s in metropolitan areas.
Small stations and antennas sprouted across the country to capture signals
from broadcasters in major cities including New York and Chicago. After a
slow down on television technology development and construction of new
stations during World War II, the late 1940s brought a boom in TV sets in
homes and programming. In 1939, when radio still dominated the airwaves
and homes, fewer than 20,000 television sets were in American homes. By
1948, almost 800,000 television sets had been purchased by Americans and
NBC broadcast its first news program that year By 1953 the number of
homes that owned a television set stood at 52 million and were present in
over 80 percent of households by the end of the decade. See Patrick Parsons,
Blue Skies: A History of Cable Television (Philadelphia: Temple University
Press, 2008), 45-49; Brownell, Showbiz Politics: Hollywood in American
Political Life,133.
35. Andreas Etges, “‘A Great Box-Office Actor’: John. F Kennedy, Television,
and the 1960 Presidential Election,” in Electoral Cultures: American
Democracy and Choice, edited by Georgiana Banita and Sascha Pohlmann
(Heidelberg, Germany: Universit€atsverlag, 2015), 225-237.
36. Etges, “‘A Great Box-Office Actor,’” 226; Vito N. Silvestri, “Television’s
Interface with Kennedy, Nixon, and Trump: Two Politicians and One TV
Celebrity,” American Behavioral Scientist 63, no. 7 (2019): 974.
37. Silvestri, “Television’s Interface,” 983.
38. Kathryn Cramer Brownell, Showbiz Politics: Hollywood in American
Political Life (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2014), 160.
39. Etges, “‘A Great Box-Office Actor,’” 230.
40. Leonard J. Reinsch, Getting Elected: From Radio and Roosevelt to Television
and Reagan (New York: Hippocrene Books, 1988); David Michael Ryfe,
“Franklin Roosevelt and the Fireside Chats,” International Communication
Association 49, no. 4 (1999): 162.
41. Reinsch, Getting Elected, 162; John F. Kennedy, “A Force that has Changed
the Political Scene,” TV Guide, November 14, 1959, https://museum.tv/
debateweb/html/equalizer/print/tvguide_jfkforce.htm.
42. Judith Hoover, “An Early Use of Television as a Political Tool,” Journal of
Popular Film and Television 16, no. 1 (1988): 41.
43. Silvestri, “Television’s Interface,” 981.
24 A. WALTER AND K. ANDERSEN TUTTLE

44. Silvestri, “Television’s Interface,” 981.

45. Reinsch, Getting Elected; David Michael Ryfe, “Franklin Roosevelt,” 168.
46. Hoover, “An Early Use of Television,” 45.
47. Mary Ann Watson, The Expanding Vista: American Television in the
Kennedy Years (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 72.
48. Berry, John F. Kennedy and the Media, 69.
49. Silvestri, Becoming JFK: A Profile in Communication (Westport CT:
Praeger, 2000), 274.
50. Silvestri, Becoming JFK, 264.
51. Berry, John F. Kennedy and the Media, 66.
52. Greenberg, Republic of Spin, 341.
53. Greenberg, Republic of Spin, 342-343.
54. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Press Conference Online by Gerhard Peters and
John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.
presidency.ucsb.edu/node/207838.
55. “God’s Country,” Time, July 9, 1934, 12.
56. “Mr. Roosevelt’s Appeal,” New York Times, June 26, 1933, 16.
57. “Banking Normal Again,” New York Times, March 14, 1933, 14.
58. “Mr. Roosevelt’s Address,” New York Times, April 30, 1935, 16.
59. “Presidential Timbre,” Time, June 19, 1939, 56.
60. “Presidential Timbre,” 56.
61. “Presidential Timbre,” 56.
62. Arthur Krock, “The Message to Congress a Speech to the Nation?” New
York Times, December 26, 1933, 14.
63. “Press Conference on Live TV,” New York Times, January 27, 1961, 22.
64. “Press Conference on Live TV,” 22.
65. “J.F.K. & the Conference,” Time, March 24, 1961, 44.
66. John F. Kennedy, The President’s News Conference Online by Gerhard
Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, March 8,
1961, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/236124.
67. Lenthall, Radio’s America, 90.
68. A.G. Winkler, letter to the editor, Time, May 29, 1933, 4.
69. Greenberg, Republic of Spin, 249.
70. Lenthall, Radio’s America, 134-135.
71. Lenthall, Radio’s America, 98.
72. Susan J. Douglas and Andrea McDonnell, Celebrity: A History of Fame
(New York: New York University Press, 2019), 138-139.
73. John F. Kennedy, “A Force that has Changed the Political Scene,” TV
Guide, November 14, 1959, https://museum.tv/debateweb/html/equalizer/
print/tvguide_jfkforce.htm.
74. Kennedy, TV Guide.
75. “Too Much Personality?” Time, August 17, 1962, 42.
76. “Too Much Personality?” Time.
77. “Too Much Personality?” Time.
78. James Reston, “Washington: How to Break the Rules Without Getting
Caught,” New York Times, November 29, 1961, 40.
79. “No Hasty Inflation,” New York Times, May 9, 1933, 16.
80. “Press Conference on Live TV,” New York Times, January 27, 1961, 22.
81. Reston, “Washington,” 40.
82. Reston, “Washington,” 40.
 AMERICAN JOURNALISM 25

83. “Government on Camera,” New York Times, October 23, 1963, 40.
84. “Juggernaut South,” Time, May 3, 1943, 20.
85. “The Bear’s Teeth,” Time, February 24, 1961, 16-19.
86. “J.F.K. & the Conference,” Time, March 24, 1961, 44.
87. “J.F.K. & the Conference,” 44.
88. “J.F.K. & the Conference,” 44.
89. “J.F.K. & the Conference,” 44.
90. “J.F.K. & the Conference,” 44.
91. “J.F.K. & the Conference,” 44.
92. “The Show-Biz Conference,” Time, November 17, 1961, 39-40.
93. “The Show-Biz Conference,” 39-40.
94. “The Show-Biz Conference,” 39-40.
95. “J.F.K. & the Conference,” Time, March 24, 1961, 44.
96. “J.F.K. & the Conference,” 44.
97. “J.F.K. & the Conference,” 44.
98. “J.F.K. & the Conference,” 44.
99. “The Press Conferences,” New York Times, September 13, 1962, 36.
100. “The Press Conferences,” 36.
101. Bob Schieffer, “John F. Kennedy: Our First Television President,” CBS
News, May 29, 2017, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-f-kennedy-our-
first-television-president/.
102. “Permanent Suspension of @RealDonaldTrump,” Twitter blog, https://blog.
twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html.
103. Michael D. Shear, Maggie Haberman, Nicholas Confessore, Karen Yourish,
Larry Buchanan, and Keith Collins, “How Trump Reshaped the Presidency
in Over 11,000 Tweets,” New York Times, November 2, 2019, https://www.
nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/02/us/politics/trump-twitter-presidency.
html?smid=nytcore-ios-share. The polling tracked tweets from January 20,
2017-October 15, 2019.
104. Marshall McLuhan, “The Medium is the Message,” in Understanding
Media: The Extensions of Man (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964).
105. “Press Conference on Live TV,” New York Times, January 27, 1961, 22.
106. “The Show-Biz Conference,” 39-40.

Notes on Contributors
Ashley Walter is a Postdoctoral Teaching Fellow in the Journalism &
Communication Department at Utah State University. An expert in media history
with a focus on women’s labor, Walter’s work has been published in Journalism
History, American Journalism, and The Journal of Magazine Media.
Karlin Andersen Tuttle is a mass communication doctoral candidate at
Pennsylvania State University. Her research broadly focuses on the intersection of
media, history, and religion. Under the umbrella of media history, she is interested
in how secular and religious popular media inform a person’s view of a religion.
Copyright of American Journalism is the property of Routledge and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.