But, if one will notice, these articles were not treated as vitally important news. Yes, they did actually make the paper, but the articles were kind of tucked further into the paper where they might be missed by many readers. And on top of that the articles used the information just to point a finger at McCarthy, not to point out that the press was being attacked through its lifeline: the advertisers. This was threatening the freedom of the press. Why was it not a bigger issue?

The answer may be contained in a March 4, 1952 article written by Marquis Childs of the Washington Post. In “Showdown on McCarthy,” Childs admits that “conservative publications began to realize that here was a direct attack on the rights of a free press” (12). But in the very next sentence, Childs states that Luce’s “rich and powerful empire” could easily take McCarthy’s attack. Was that reason enough not to be concerned? Had the press breathed a sigh of relief because they felt that their bank of several advertisers would protect them by sheer number? Radio and television did not have this multi-advertiser setup and was vulnerable to attack as multi-cited Pearson case had shown.

June 17, 1952 an article in The New York Times was testimony to the continuation of McCarthy’s threat. The letters that he had threatened to send had been sent, and James A. sLinen, the publisher of Time magazine, told the press that eleven of the advertisers had received a letter but did not plan to anything. And no one else did anything else either. “Time magazine spokesman then and later denied that McCarthy’s letters had any effect on advertising” (Bayley 170). The issue seemed to be dropped from the press and deemed as just another of Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s egotistical tirades. It was not until CBS and Edward R. Murrow’s See It Now that the relationship between advertisers and programs were examined and eventually changed.

Yet, today, the media is still not safe from the manipulation of the advertisers. The advertisers directly or indirectly censor the content of the news before we, the audience and consumers, see or hear it. They have financial and political concerns that must not be tampered with while their advertisements are being shown. The promotion of a particular product, service, or political candidate depends on who owns the network, newspaper, or radio station. According to Ronald K. L. Collins, co-founder of the Center for the Study of Commercialism, “NBC’s ‘Today’ show, in 1989, attempted to delete from the affiliate prepared story documented references to dangerously substandard parts used to construct jet planes. The offending references were to General Electric, NBC’s parent company” (vi).

Political Advertising Continued....