COMPARISON BETWEEN 1972 ELECTION COVERAGE BETWEEN NEWSWEEK
AND ROLLING STONE
Copyright 1998 Robert Alan Hemauer
No part of this work may be copied or altered without direct consent of the author
All Rights Reserved
"So all you newsy people, spread the news around..."- Bob Dylan, "Hard Times in New York Town" (1)
1972 was a benchmark year for presidential politics. Although the annals of history will anoint the Watergate
scandal the most important event of that year's
presidential campaign; the process of selecting the Democratic presidential nominee is equally significant.
The Democratic Primaries were, in retrospect, a battle between the "old", or centrist, members of the party, and the "new"
ideologically driven Democrats. The content in both Newsweek and Rolling Stone reflects this split, to
varying degrees. The political outlooks of the two magazines are clearly defined within their coverage of the 1972
Democratic nomination process.
The political ideologies of the magazines become apparent when comparing their coverage of Senator
Hubert Humphrey's campaign. Humphrey, the 1968 Presidential Nominee for the Democrats, was a prime example of the
Old Wing of the Democratic primary. Newsweek described him as "A long time liberal with staunch allies among party
regulars and in organized labor..." (2).
The overall treatment Humphrey received in Rolling Stone was not kind. Hunter S.
Thompson described Humphrey as a "treacherous, gutless old ward-heeler who should be put in a goddamn bottle
and sent out with the Japanese Current" (3). The criticism of Humphrey, however, was more specific than the fact that
he represented the moderate wing of the Democratic party. Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner expressed the
opposition to Humphrey in an editorial endorsing eventual nominee Senator George McGovern, saying that "[he] has
happily and merrily committed himself to the politics of murder abroad and repression at home." (4) The left inextricably linked
Humphrey to the crackdown by police on demonstrators during the 1968 primary as well as the
escalation of the war in Vietnam. The magazine's "straight" political reportage was scant and came largely from
Timothy Crouse, and was discernibly anti-Humphrey, but did not contain the vitriolic attacks that characterized Thompson's pieces. (5)
Rolling Stone's criticism of Humphrey was generally indicative of the "new" wing's opposition to him as well.
In describing Humphrey's liabilities, Newsweek acknowledged that these two issues were
influential during the primaries. "[Humphrey is] still tied to LBJ's war policies and [is] dogged by
memories of 1968 national convention..." (6) While Newsweek acknowledged the left's criticisms of
Humphrey, the two magazines differed significantly in their coverage of the Humphrey Campaign both on the
Editorial Page and in the National Affairs column. The political coverage that Humphrey got was vaguely
supportive, and at the beginning of the primary season, the magazine published Humphrey as a 4 to 1 shot at the Nomination. (7)
Later in the race, the magazine said in a feature piece on Humphrey "But there are days when the speeches
are crisp and the handshakes firm, and it is possible to imagine him in the White House after all." (8)
Editorially, Newsweek was less optimistic about Humphrey's chances. In a Column entitled
"Stassenization", Stewart Alsop invents the verb "to stassenize",
and uses it to describe candidates who run for the Presidency without having a
ny chance of winning. According to Alsop "There are no fewer than five stassenized
politicians running this year: McCarthy, George Wallace, Vance Hartke, George McGovern
and (although there are those who would strongly deny it) good old Hubert Humphrey" (9).
However, it is significant to note that a criticism of Humphrey's politics appeared nowhere
within either the editorials or the reportage of the time period that ran in Newsweek.
This lack of criticism implicitly demonstrates the conservative attitude that the magazine had toward the Democratic party.
The coverage of Governor George Wallace's campaign also illustrates the chasm between the
wings of the Democratic party. Wallace's platform was simple: end school busing.
This made him somewhat of an anomaly within the party, most of the conservative Southern Democrats
had left the party either during the New Deal reforms of the Roosevelt administration, or during the early
1960s push by the party to pass civil rights legislation. Rolling Stone, predictably detested Wallace's politics (10).
However, his position as an "outsider" in the political world softened the criticism of his position, because the magazine itself was in a similar position within the publishing world, because it was "the organ of the counterculture." (11) This duality is expressed in Timothy Crouse's piece on the attempt on Wallace's life.
In describing the incident, he writes that after the shots, "a large part of the crowd had immediately turned its attention to four young blacks who had been heckling from the rear... The Wallace crowd was ready for a reflexive lynching." (12) However, in the next sentence, Crouse said that "There were some Wallace Supporters who talked like men of peace, and it was easy to feel sympathetic with them." (13) This expression of lukewarm sympathy comes from not only Wallace's "outsider status" but also his popular appeal. During the Wisconsin Primary, Thompson described Wallace's speaking ability quite vividly, "I had a sense that the bastard had somehow levitated himself and was hovering over us...Anybody who doubts the Wallace appeal should go out and catch his act sometime" (14) At heart, the people at the magazine were populists; their magazine's success was not based on accolades from the established press, but rather the strong support of loyal readers.
Accordingly, Thompson expressed a certain respect for the popular support that Wallace received, while strongly disagreeing with his politics. This mild respect, however, did not temper Thompson's political analysis. After predicting that Wallace would not perform well in California, he went on to say that despite the increase in popularity after the shooting, "Wallace is not even likely now to have any real bargaining at the Convention" (15)
Newsweek's coverage of the Wallace campaign was more favorable than that of Rolling Stone, as the magazine consistently portrayed Wallace as a stronger prescience within the Democratic Party. Immediately, Columnist Stewart Alsop condemned Wallace as a "stassenized" politician. (16) While Alsop did not believe that Wallace could win, he thought that Wallace would play a prominent role at the convention. Initially, Alsop thought that the governor would be at the center of the "inevitable" controversy at the Democratic Convention. "In any event, there is sure to be a row [at the convention], and George Wallace is sure to be in the middle of it" (17) Wallace received a tremendous boost in popularity after the attempt on his life, and subsequently won both the Maryland and Michigan primaries. Alsop modified his position considerably, "[after these events] you have to conclude that Wallace's constituency is as big as front runner George McGovern's and maybe bigger." (18) This change is quite significant, especially when compared to Thompson's opinion; Alsop emphasized "The Wallace Factor" at the Democratic convention heavily, and this reflects Newsweek's more centrist position.
This position is also reflected in the coverage that Wallace received in the National Affairs column as well. Initially, there was scant mention of Wallace and his potential role as a spoiler at the July convention. However, after the Florida primary, which Wallace won with 42 percent of the popular vote, Newsweek's reporting began to echo Alsop's predictions. "George Wallace will probably arrive at Miami Beach as a force to be reckoned with...He will have his voice on the platform committee..." (19). After Wallace's brush with death, the reportage was quite favorable. The week of the shooting, the magazine ran an extensive piece on the incident, complete with color photos, that was generally complementary to Wallace. (20) In contrast, Rolling Stone devoted less than a page to the shooting, which is partly due to the fact that the correspondents were stuck in traffic, but is also a reflection of the magazine's positon on the political spectrum. (21) Clearly, Newsweek, even in their reporting, emphasized Wallace's influence more than Rolling Stone.
Edmund Muskie's campaign was the favorite of the pundits at the start of the primary season; he also represented the old wing of the democratic party's choice to face the incumbent Nixon in the General election. Rolling Stone was unequivocally opposed to Muskie's nomination, and this was apparent in the stories that both Thompson and Crouse filed. Thompson put it typically bluntly in his article that ran on 3 February, "Muskie is a bonehead who steals his best lines from Nixon" (22) This reinforces Rolling Stone's position as an organ of the progressive wing of political thought, and specifically, the new wing of the Democratic party. Crouse also shared a low opinion of Muskie, "Nothing about Muskie explains, in one flash, why people should vote for him...Like Nixon in '68, Muskie lacks any real reason for running." (23) The established members of the Democratic party initially supported Muskie, as is evidenced by the impressive number of endorsements that he amassed in the early stages of the primaries. This support generally came because the consensus was that he was the only candidate how could beat Nixon.
Hunter Thompson recognized this rationale, and he said of it "[When will we get a chance] to vote for something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils." (24) After the New Hampshire primary, which Muskie barely won, Thompson characterized the "win" thusly, "For months, they've been selling Muskie as...the ideal 'centrist' candidate. But the voters were not quite that stupid." (25) Thompson, Rolling Stone, and the new progressive democrats all desired a candidate who was more than a "best shot." They wanted a nominee who embodied their beliefs, and Edmund Muskie was not that candidate.
The Muskie campaign was in better shape according to Newsweek. Early in the primary season, the coverage that Muskie received would lead one to believe that the nomination was his to claim. When the magazine published odds on the Candidates, they classified Muskie as a 2 to 5 shot- by far the best odds given to any of the Democratic hopefuls. (26) Newsweek's coverage of Muskie going into the first primary election, in New Hampshire, was quite optimistic. While acknowledging that other candidates were challenging Muskie, Newsweek still asserted that "no one is suggesting that...Muskie is in real trouble" (27) After the New Hampshire primary, which Muskie won with a surprisingly small 48 percent of the vote, the magazine asserted that "Muskie's natural appeal gave him a sturdy slice of the vote..." (28) in an area in which Candidate George McGovern did well. These are the sentiments of the old wing of the Democratic Party- that Muskie's "natural appeal", not his policy initiatives, made him the best candidate to face Nixon in November.
This support for Muskie is advanced further in Newsweek's opinion columns. Richard Scammon, in a column of 10 January summarized what he saw as the major issues in the Primary race. He directed readers to "[w]atch for delegate counts showing the magnitude of Muskie's lead and watch for the other candidates to drop out." (29) Scammon exemplified the conventional wisdom of the political experts who fully expected that the old wing of the party would prevail like they had in the past and get Muskie nominated. Stewart Alsop outlined somewhat further the support for Muskie when discussion the issue of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. When characterizing the Senator's stance on the Vietnam Conflict, Alsop stated that "Ed Muskie's one line (30) certainly is popular." (31) This observation is in direct contradiction to the analysis of both Thompson and Crouse in Rolling Stone. Alsop clearly is acknowledging Muskie's popularity, and thus furthers the view of the old Democrats. Throughout the early coverage, Alsop finds little fault with Muskie, but does acknowledge that "Muskie has a nasty money problem..." (32) Again, Alsop placed the emphasis on the mechanical process of running a campaign, not the positions that fuel a candidate's popularity.
The general perception, and press coverage, of Muskie's bid for the nomination changed after the Wisconsin primaries. After McGovern won, and Wallace took second in the contest, it looked as if Ed Muskie was out of the running for the nomination after his weak showings in the previous primaries.
The general tone of Rolling Stone's coverage did not change much. However, Hunter S. Thompson commented on the assumption of the old party bosses that Muskie was the only Democrat who could beat Nixon. He argued that "it was stone madness from the start to ever think about exposing him [Muskie] to the kind of bloodthirsty thugs that Nixon and John Mitchell would sic on him." (33) This obviously contradicted what most, if not all, analysts predicted about Muskie's chances, and was most likely influenced by Thompson's political leanings. In an later piece, Thompson implicitly questioned Muskie's strategy by offering his interpretation of McGovern's. "Muskie would fold early on because The Center [sic] was not only indefensible but probably nonexistent..." (34) While an implicit criticism of Muskie's tactics , it is an explicit condemnation of the old wing of the Democratic party, which is characterized by its centrist views. Timothy Crouse continued the condemnation of Muskie by stating that he "has made countless bungles, one of the earliest was his decision to depend entirely on Party Organization..." (35) in his Wisconsin campaign. It is apparent, therefore, that while the criticism of Muskie changed in Rolling Stone as the election wore on, its intensity did not.
This level of consistency in tone is not as apparent in the stories that appeared in Newsweek's National Affairs section. Before the Pennsylvania primary, Newsweek characterized Muskie as "the central figure of all the Democrats seeking the Presidential nomination- if only as a kind of dartboard for the other to aim their best shots at." (36) This is a marked change in tone from four months earlier, when the magazine practically handed the nomination to the Senator. It is important to note that Newsweek's predictions of Muskie's demise came substantially later than Rolling Stone's. In fact, not until Muskie drops out does Newsweek report in its issue of 8 May that "In just three months his [Muskie's] position eroded from that of odds-on centrist favorite...to one of a desperate last-chancer..." (37) While the rejection of Muskie as a favorite represents moderate yielding to the more liberal new wing of the Democrats, its timing confirms Newsweek's commitments to the traditional powers within the party.
Stewart Alsop's opinions helped to establish Newsweek as the representative journal of the traditional Democratic party, and this is apparent in his columns after Muskie had started to disintegrate. Alsop analyzed the Muskie breakdown in his column "Muskie: No Foundation All the Way Down the Line." In it, he outlines the mistakes that he felt the Senator had made during the primaries. Essentially his critique rested upon one statement: "The deflation of Sen. Edmund Muskie has been almost embarrassing to watch...[his] central mistake was to zig to the left when he should have zagged to the center..." (38) Clearly, Alsop felt that Muskie was the Democratic Party's only hop for beating Nixon, and his strength lay in his relatively conservative views, therefore Alsop naturally thought that a move to the left represented a sort of political suicide. (39) The value Alsop places on winning elections comes at the expense of ideology- a defining characteristic of the old-guard Democrat in the 1972 campaign.
The candidate whose coverage, however, typifies the each magazine's political position was George McGovern. Early on in the campaign, McGovern was considered a symbolic campaigner, whose influence was probably going to be limited to nudging the party platform slightly to the left, if he was to have any at all.
Rolling Stone focused on the McGovern campaign from the beginning of their coverage. In the first article that appeared in the magazine about the 1972 election, Hunter Thompson expressed his respect for McGovern.
"George McGovern, the only candidate in either party worth voting for is hung in a
frustration limbo created mainly by the gross cynicism of the Washington Press Corps." (40) He goes on to question the conventional wisdom, that McGovern can't possibly win, by asking "Why not? Well...the wizards haven't bothered to explain that..." (41) This support for McGovern continued in Thompson's analysis of the New Hampshire primary, "The career pols and press wizards say that he simply lacks 'charisma,' but that's a cheap and simplistic idea that is more an insult to the electorate than to McGovern..." (42). The magazine's early support for McGovern was echoed in Timothy Crouse's report on the New Hampshire primary. Crouse says simply "McGovern is indisputably a man of conscience. He opposed the war in the Senate...he has opened his [campaign finance] books..." (43) This early enthusiasm for McGovern, combined with a profound distaste for the dominant current of political analysis further establishes Rolling Stone as the mouthpiece for the new left.
Newsweek's early coverage of McGovern's bid for the nomination was quite
a bit more pessimistic. Initially, they gave odds on his nomination as 50 to 1. (44) This continued throughout the first part of the primary season: McGovern was considered too liberal to have a broad enough appeal to show well in the primaries. The magazine, when covering the Florida primary, attributed his lack of success to his progressivism. "That [his liberal position] may be why McGovern has not seemed to make much progress outside Miami and the campuses..." (45) Despite his branding as a progressive, McGovern still finished ahead of the more conservative Edmund Muskie in the Florida primary.
Therefore, while Newsweek's observation was at least partially based in fact, it also was clearly affected by the magazine's orientation towards the old guard Democrats. However, the magazine's treatment of McGovern was not completely negative: it often praised his organization. In describing the New Hampshire race, Newsweek said that McGovern's campaign was "supported by a superb statewide organization..." (46) Even in this complimentary statement, Newsweek demonstrates its allegiance to the old wing of the Democratic party. The Democrats built their power base around strong organization in America's cities, by acknowledging McGovern's organizational skills, especially when combined with the rejection of his ideals, it is a compliment that helps to classify the magazine as favoring the old Democrats.
Newsweek's approach to McGovern in the opinion columns during the early stages of the primary process also demonstrates its position as an organ of traditional Democrats. In Richard Scammon's piece in which he outlines the important issues surrounding the major candidates. McGovern was not mentioned. (47) Stewart Alsop characterized George McGovern as "stassenized", or as having absolutely no chance of getting the nomination, in his column of 3 January. (48) When Alsop treated McGovern as a serious candidate, he admitted that "McGovern's nomination would mean a revolutionary transformation of the country's majority party" (49) He goes on to characterize McGovern as a socialist by European standards, but then assures the public, and the old left, that "[t]here is no evidence at all that McGovern has enough popular support to fuel a revolution." (50) Clearly, Alsop's characterization is the traditional, old-left criticism of McGovern in a slightly different context, but essentially it is the same observation: McGovern is not popular enough, because of his politics, to beat Nixon. The most telling of Alsop's initial columns about George McGovern is "The Clothespin Vote", in which he explicitly states that "[McGovern] will be the candidate of the new breed of left ideologues, including the kind of people that made a shambles out of the 1968 Democratic convention and thus helped make Mr. Nixon President." (51) This, more than any other statement, categorizes Alsop, and by association Newsweek, as a supporter of the old wing of the Democratic party. By equating McGovern with the violence surrounding the 1968 convention, Alsop is doing two things. First, he is asserting that McGovern, and by association, his ideologies, mean political suicide for the party. Also, by implying that the people on the left caused the violence in Chicago in 1968, he exonerates the Chicago Police force of any wrongdoing. This alone is not very significant, but when one realizes that the Police were under the direct orders of Boss Richard Daley, an important old-guard Democrat, Alsop's criticism also reinforces the position of the traditional powers within the party.
As the campaign progressed, McGovern's relative strength increased, and Rolling Stone's coverage of his camp stayed quite favorable. Hunter Thompson summarized McGovern's experience in the primaries when he said that "[nobody] argued with the things McGovern said. He was right, of course- but nobody took him very seriously, either..." (52) This encapsulates the feelings of the new left- that although McGovern had the right ideas, the old Democrats never saw him as a serious candidate. Rolling Stone's role as the vanguard of the new left was crystallized two weeks later when Thompson described McGovern's win in New York, against the will of the traditional members of the party. "McGovern's people kicked out the jams. They stomped every hack, ward-heeler and 'old-line party boss' from Buffalo to Brooklyn." (53) Thompson clearly defines the two camps within the Democratic party: McGovern on one side, and the "old line-party bosses" on the other. Rolling Stone's position within this dichotomy is defined in Jann Wenner's untitled editorial endorsing McGovern on 8 June 1972. "We endorse George McGovern for President. It was an easy decision to make, and we do it without qualification." (54)
Rolling Stone was clearly committed to the progressive forces working to shape a place for themselves within the Democratic party.
The tone of Newsweek's National Affairs column changed considerably as McGovern's campaign experienced success, but it still remained cautious in it's limited analysis. As McGovern headed toward the convention with enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot, Newsweek analyzed McGovern's chances. "The answer [to 'Does McGovern have the Nomination'] was by no means unanimous...with varying expressions of delight, alarm or merely astonishment...[was] yes" (55) Clearly, the magazine did not deny McGovern's momentum, but it was tempered with the magazine's loyalty to the traditional Democrats. This limited acknowledgment of McGovern's strength is furthered in a piece entitled "Is It an Era- Or Only an Hour?," in which the magazine attempts to determine the McGovern campaign's impact on politics, "whether it [the 'Age of McGovern'] lasts a generation, or only the four months left till [sic] Election Day, it promised to alter the face of American Presidential politics." (56) This is the first statement that Newsweek made in its "objective" news column that would suggest that McGovern's barnstorm is more than an abnormally successful dark horse candidate, but this suggestion is moderated by the magazine's political loyalties.
While the reportage in Newsweek allowed for an optimistic view of the McGovern campaign, Stewart Alsop's editorial columns continued to be firm in their defense of the old-line Democrats. Alsop took very seriously the challenge that Humphrey made to half of McGovern's California delegation (57). "[It] is no longer safe to predict George McGovern's nomination...whatever happens there [at the Democratic Convention] will hurt the Democrats..." (58)
This comment serves two distinct ends. On one level, it casts the doubt that the old-guard Democrats tried to
place over the McGovern nomination. It also reflects the old-guard's resentment of McGovern's success in the
primaries, by blaming the progressive faction for a potential failure in the general election in November.
Alsop also condemns McGovern as a "word eater" in an earlier column, because he modified his
positions on certain issues (59) in the campaign. He comes to the conclusion that "the result of the rethinking is
sure to be a heaping dish of words for McGovern to eat" (60) What makes this a statement of the old-guard is its tone.
There seems to be a certain gleefulness in McGovern's revisions, despite the fact that Alsop felt that
McGovern needed to broaden his appeal. (61) Despite this general contempt for McGovern's campaign,
Alsop had a respect for McGovern's organization calling it "first-class." (62)
Like the respect that the National Affairs pieces initially had for McGovern, it
comes in spite of, rather than in addition to, McGovern's politics, and hence is denotative
of the thinking of a conservative, old wing Democrat.
The coverage that each candidate got in Newsweek and Rolling Stone varied considerably, and these differences help to elucidate each magazine's relative political position. Newsweek's readers were more likely to be older, middle class males: the constituency that the old wing of the Democratic party came to rely upon. (63) Rolling Stone was probably read by a younger, more liberal person, the typical member of the "new left." Both magazines were filling a niche, and serving their market, and at the same time, expressing the dominant views of the people who ran both publications. The 1972 primaries were a indeed battle between new and old that was fought not only in the polling places and policy forums, but on the pages of the popular print as well.
1 - Bob Dylan, The Bootleg Series: Volumes 1-3(Rare and Unreleased) 1961-1991, Columbia Records, C3K 65302, 1991.
2 - "Muskie and the Pack: See How They Run," Newsweek, 31 January 1972, 17.
3 - Hunter S. Thompson, "Fear and Loathing: The Banshee Screams in Florida," Rolling Stone, 13 April 1972, 14.
4 - Jann Wenner, Untitled Editorial, Rolling Stone, 8 June 1972, 41.
5 - Timothy Crouse "How the Hump Went Down," Rolling Stone, 17 August 1972, 40.
6 - "Muskie and the Pack: See How They Run," Newsweek 31 January 1972, 17.
7 - Ibid.
8 - Peter Goldman, "Is It a Bird? A Plane? No-HHH," Newsweek, 22 May 1972, 26.
9 - Stewart Alsop, "Stassenization," Newsweek, 3 January 1972, 60. "Stassenization" is derived from failed presidential candidate Harold Stassen.
10 - Please See Appendix A.
11 - Stewart Alsop, "The Clothespin Vote," Newsweek 17 April 1972, 108.
12 - Timothy Crouse, "Memo From Holy Cross," Rolling Stone, 8 June 1972, 40.
13 - Ibid.
14 - Hunter S. Thompson, "Fear and Loathing in Wisconsin: Bad News From Bleak House," Rolling Stone, 27 April 1972, 12.
15 - Hunter S. Thompson "Fear and Loathing: Crank Time on the Low Road," Rolling Stone, 8 June 1972, 40.
16 - Alsop, "Stassenization," 60.
17 - Alsop, "The Clothespin Vote," 108.
18 - Stewart Alsop, "The Wallace Factor," Newsweek 29 May 1972, 92.
19 - "After the Florida Free-for-All," Newsweek, 27 March 1972, 27.
20 - "Appointment in Laurel," Newsweek, 29 May 1972, 20-24.
21 Thompson "Fear and Loathing: Crank Time on the Low Road," 40.
22 Hunter S. Thompson, "Fear and Loathing in Washington: The Million Pound Shithammer," Rolling Stone, 3 February 1972, 10.
23 Timothy Crouse, "Stalking the Campaigners in New Hampshire," Rolling Stone, 16 March 1972, 11.
24 Thompson, "The Million Pound Shithammer," 10. (Emphasis was Thompson's)
25 Thompson, "Fear and Loathing: The Banshee Screams in Florida," 12.
26 "Muskie and the Pack: See How They Run," 17.
27 "Campaign '72: The New Hampshire Story," Newsweek, 21 February 1972, 31.
28 "Ed Muskie's Underwhelming Victory," Newsweek, 20 March 1972, 21.
29 Richard Scammon, "Memo from Richard Scammon," Newsweek, 10 January 1972, 12.
30 Quoted earlier in the column, the one line was "We must get out of the war."
31 Stewart Alsop, "Vietnam: The Real Issue," Newsweek, 14 February 1972, 100.
32 Alsop, "Stassenization," 60.
33 - Hunter S. Thompson, "Fear and Loathing: Late News from Bleak House," Rolling Stone, 11 May 1972, 30.
34 - Hunter S. Thompson, "Fear and Loathing in Miami: Old Bulls Meet the Butcher," Rolling Stone, 17 August 1972, 34.
35 - Timothy Crouse, "The Machine that Won in Wisconsin," Rolling Stone, 27 April 1972, 8.
36 - "Campaign '72: Do or Die," Newsweek, 24 April 1972, 26.
37 - "Now, It's a New Democratic Race," Newsweek, 8 May 1972, 22.
38 - Stewart Alsop, "Muskie: No Foundation All the Way Down the Line," Newsweek, 8 May 1972, 118.
39 - Stewart Alsop, "Lucky Dick," Newsweek, 27 March 1972, 116.
40 - Hunter S. Thompson "Fear and Loathing in Washington: Is this Trip Necessary?," Rolling Stone, 6 January 1972, 6.
41 - Ibid.
42 - Hunter S. Thompson "Fear and Loathing in New Hampshire," Rolling Stone, 2 March 1972, 8.
43 - Crouse, "Stalking the Campaigners in New Hampshire," 11.
44 - "Muskie and the Pack: See How They Run," 17. It is interesting to note here that McGovern, NYC Mayor John Lindsay, and, curiously enough, Segregationist George
Wallace were all given the same odds. Muskie, Humphrey and Senator Henry Jackson were given better odds.
45 - "Everybody's Running in Florida," Newsweek, 7 February 1972, 25.
46 - "Now Muskie Hits the Hurdles," Newsweek 6 March 1972, 34.
47 - Scammon, "Memo from Richard Scammon," 12.
48 - Alsop, "Stassenization," 60.
49 - Alsop, "Lucky Dick," 116.
50 - Ibid.
51 - Alsop, "The Clothespin Vote," 108.
52 - Hunter S. Thompson, "Fear and Loathing in California: Traditional Politics with a Vengeance," Rolling Stone, 6 July 1972, 43.
53 - Hunter S. Thompson, "Fear and Loathing: In the Eye of the Hurricane," Rolling Stone, 20 July 1972, 22.
54 - Wenner, 41.
55 - "Does McGovern Have It Made?," Newsweek, 5 June 1972, 33.
56 - "Is It an Era, or Only an Hour?," Newsweek, 24 July 1972, 16.
57 - Humphrey questioned the constitutionality of California's "winner take all" style primary.
58 - Stewart Alsop, "Who Can Beat Nixon?," Newsweek, 17 July 1972, 84.
59 - The one issue Alsop used for illustration was the reduction of McGovern's proposed inheritance tax from one hundred to seventy-seven percent.
60 - Stewart Alsop, "McGovern as a Word Eater," Newsweek 19 June 1972, 104.
61 - Stewart Alsop. "Why Were We Wrong?," Newsweek, 12 June 1972, 112.
62 - Ibid.
63 - Herbert J. Gans, Deciding What's News (New York: Vintage, 1980), 222.
Back to top
NOTE AND DISCLAIMER
Sign My Guestbook
View My Guestbook