Social Reaction to the blacklist:
media portrayal of the hollywood ten
The media played a substantial part throughout the whole blacklist era. In fact, the official introduction of a blacklist, which sparked an investigation of communism in Hollywood and the creation of the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), is from the media. In 1946, William “Billy” Wilkerson, a publisher and the founder of the popular magazine The Hollywood Reporter, published an article its “TradeView” column with the title “A Vote for Joe Stalin” [1]. This article gave out the names of those accused as being communist sympathizers. Some of those would later be known as the “Hollywood Ten”.
Although his son claimed 66 years after this article was published that his father’s intention was to take revenge on the film industry that “squashed his dreams” and failed him [2], the original article nonetheless portrayed those quoted in the “Billy’s List” as threats to the American society.
During the time of the HUAC trials, media portrayal of the Hollywood Ten was polarized. On one side, media at the time helped the HUAC carry the sentence to convicted personnel beyond their jail sentence. This was observed by Philip Dunne, one of the founders of the Committee for the First Amendment:
Although his son claimed 66 years after this article was published that his father’s intention was to take revenge on the film industry that “squashed his dreams” and failed him [2], the original article nonetheless portrayed those quoted in the “Billy’s List” as threats to the American society.
During the time of the HUAC trials, media portrayal of the Hollywood Ten was polarized. On one side, media at the time helped the HUAC carry the sentence to convicted personnel beyond their jail sentence. This was observed by Philip Dunne, one of the founders of the Committee for the First Amendment:
Legally barred from sentencing those they “convicted,” they passed this function on to the private sector – to the American Legion, Red Channels, the Hearst newspapers, and other volunteer agencies and individuals who stood ready and eager to enforce the sentence openly encouraged by the Congressional inquisitors: the blacklist, the ruin of reputation and the deprivation of livelihood.” [3] |
On the other side of the story, certain reporters did portray the rebellious action of the Hollywood Ten in a more positive way. Taking the coverage on John Howard Lawson’s trial as an Example. Looking at Los Angeles Times correspondent Warren B. Francis’s article on the trial, Francis seemingly described the scene in details, with little signs of bias or censorship.
Video: Excerpt from John Howard Lawson's HUAC Testimony [4]
The above article acknowledged the fact that while Lawson was accused, he did not have a chance to defend himself. While two main documents against Lawson were brought in and presented to the juries, Lawson was denied the request of reading his statement, and was held down to the side by six guards after protesting for his rights. A large portion of this article quoted Lawson’s opinion on this trial, which gave him the voice he did not have in the hearings. The end of the article also exposed a possible failing future ahead of Lawson by quoting what “industry leaders” said about whether to employ suspects after they were determined as communists.
Another article written after Lawson was found guilty further exposed how media portrayed Lawson as “the head of the Communist conspiracy in Hollywood”, but went on to defend for him by stating the biggest flaw throughout the trial – that no evidence actually showed he was a communist. The end of this article gave prediction that Lawson would take the case to the Supreme Court. The tone of this prediction seems to be supporting, or at least acknowledging that Lawson is fighting for free speech. In other words, there is a strong hint that Lawson was being an activist for free speech in the matter of the HUAC trial.
Both articles emphasized on the injustice of the HUAC trials and convictions, because they would not allow suspects to defend for themselves, and convicted them of their accusations without any establishment of their affiliation with communism. The articles also portrayed those who were accused, especially the Hollywood Ten, as victims of the investigations and trials. The reaction of the Hollywood Ten towards the accusations and trials were not officially praised or glorified until the end of the blacklist era, but the articles shown above did hinted that they were defending for free speech, something undeniably positive associated with the image of the Hollywood Ten.
Both articles emphasized on the injustice of the HUAC trials and convictions, because they would not allow suspects to defend for themselves, and convicted them of their accusations without any establishment of their affiliation with communism. The articles also portrayed those who were accused, especially the Hollywood Ten, as victims of the investigations and trials. The reaction of the Hollywood Ten towards the accusations and trials were not officially praised or glorified until the end of the blacklist era, but the articles shown above did hinted that they were defending for free speech, something undeniably positive associated with the image of the Hollywood Ten.
1. William Wilkerson, "A Vote for Joe Stalin." The Hollywood Reporter, July 29, 1946, 1.
2. W. R. Wilkerson III, "An Apology: The Son of THR Founder Billy Wilkerson on the Publication's Dark Past." The Hollywood Reporter, November 19, 2012. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/blacklist-billy-wilkersons-son-apologizes-391977 (accessed November 7, 2013).
3. Philip Dunne, Take Two: A Life in Movies and Politics, (New York: Limelight Editions, 1992), 190.
4. “Howard Lawson HUAC Testimony Excerpt, 1947,” YouTube video, 1:32. Posted by “AuthenticHistory,” November 22, 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7W3XbDZqO4.
5. Warren B. Francis, "Contempt Asked as Writer Defies Film Inquiry: John Howard Lawson Removed From Stand for Refusing to Say Whether He's Communist." Los Angeles Times, October 28, 1947. 1.
6. "John Howard Lawson Found Guilty of Contempt." Los Angeles Times, April 21, 1948. A4.
2. W. R. Wilkerson III, "An Apology: The Son of THR Founder Billy Wilkerson on the Publication's Dark Past." The Hollywood Reporter, November 19, 2012. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/blacklist-billy-wilkersons-son-apologizes-391977 (accessed November 7, 2013).
3. Philip Dunne, Take Two: A Life in Movies and Politics, (New York: Limelight Editions, 1992), 190.
4. “Howard Lawson HUAC Testimony Excerpt, 1947,” YouTube video, 1:32. Posted by “AuthenticHistory,” November 22, 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7W3XbDZqO4.
5. Warren B. Francis, "Contempt Asked as Writer Defies Film Inquiry: John Howard Lawson Removed From Stand for Refusing to Say Whether He's Communist." Los Angeles Times, October 28, 1947. 1.
6. "John Howard Lawson Found Guilty of Contempt." Los Angeles Times, April 21, 1948. A4.