Editorializing the Cold War:

A look at the editorial page of

The New York Times in 1949 and 1980

INTRODUCTION

            The editorial page of a newspaper provides a reader with a great deal of insight into what is important to a community and a nation at any particular time.  While most American newspapers give primary editorial coverage to local and state issues, The New York Times addresses the issues of the nation and world as a whole on a daily basis. By analyzing the editorials of The New York Times from July 26 through August 1 of the year 1949 as well as the editorials from the same paper from May 13 through May 20 of the year 1980 one can gain some perspective about what was important to the local community in the New York-New Jersey area and more importantly what was important to the nation and the world at roughly the beginning and end of the Cold War.

            The goal of this paper is to look at the editorials from those two weeks and see what was important to all Americans during those years, which coincidently fall near the beginning and end of the Cold War.  This paper will attempt to discover what was important to The New York Times and to its readership during 1949 and 1980 and will show comparisons and contractions between the two.

Editorials of 1949

            The editorial page of The New York Times in the year 1949 is very different on its surface to what we are accustomed to today.  The editorials run in column form on the page and are accompanied by the familiar letters to the editor and a section that did not survive until 1980, Topics of the Times.  The editorial columns are similar to columns used in news articles and they run top to bottom from right to left with only a line and a headline for the next editorial serving as separation.  From July 26 to August 1, there were at least six editorials each day, with as many as eight.  Editorials that focused on New York-New Jersey state or local issues appeared about once a day.  Each day also saw at least one editorial with a feature flair, celebrating the accomplishments of a person who was well known within his or her field, but not known by the general public, for example.  The remaining editorials were predominantly international in nature.  While each day’s paper contained about two editorials that dealt with national issues, the issues often had a direct relationship with a larger, more international issue. 

            The most pressing issue of 1949 was obviously United States foreign policy, specifically with the rising Soviet Union and the emerging communist presence in China and Korea.  Almost all seven of the papers that were analyzed had foreign policy as the subject of the lead editorial and often the first editorial was not the only one that discussed United States foreign policy.  One of the most striking and noticeable aspects of the editorials that covered foreign policy was the apparent refusal of the editorial staff or the editor to criticize any foreign policy decision of the United States.  One editorial, called “End of a Program” mourns the loss of the United States Information Service in China, but at the same time places the blame for the programs death squarely on the Chinese.

“This is a sorry end to a good venture.  The service offered much of value both during and after the war.  It was hoped that it could be a continuing link between the Chinese people and ourselves.  But the Communists do not want that link.  Thus they close one more door, not only upon us but upon themselves” (The New York Times, July 26, 1949, 26 C).

While the entire editorial up to this final paragraph praised the United States Information Service and the services it provided, this paragraph gets to the very core of the editorial’s message.  The editorialist believes that the Communist Chinese are evil and that they will refuse anything American, even aid.  This melodramatic view of U.S.-Chinese relations is typical for the time period and is a very effective piece of propaganda writing.  The editorialist effectively took the specific topic, the end of the United States Information Program, and used it as a stepping stone to reach a much more lofty issue.

            This editorial was not the only one that was uncovered during the analysis of The New York Times in 1949.  An editorial entitled “Learning English in Russian” discussed Russian children that were allowed to learn English and the non-communist ideals that appeared in the children’s textbooks.

“The best books ever written in our native tongue contain ideas that do not ordinarily fit into the party line.  Some of them are full of a noble indignation against ‘man’s inhumanity to man’—and the Communist can approve that sentiment provided the oppressor is by definition bourgeois and not by and chance a slave-driver in a Communist paradise.  But great literature also proclaims the value of the individual human soul—and that is blasphemy in today’s Russia. On the whole we suspect the Russian child can learn to speak and write utilitarian English without being contaminated by the bourgeois principle of freedom.  But he can’t learn great English that way—for in it freedom burns as an undying fire” (New York Times, August 1, 1949, 16 L+).

This writing is so stirring it almost whips the modern reader into an anti-communist frenzy.  The clear-cut distinctions between the evil and restrictive communist and the passionate and humanitarian Americans is again drawn and one can assume that this was not the last editorial to draw from this mold.

            This fiery anti-communist rhetoric was not the only distinctive verbiage that could be found on The New York Times’ editorial page in 1949.  All of the editorials, regardless of subject matter, contained very technical and often complex words and ideas.  This is not completely surprising considering that The New York Times today reads at about a 11^th grade level.  When contrasted to the editorials of 1980, however, the distinction becomes clear; the editorials from 1949 require much more thought and attention to understand and decipher.  The amount of facts cited and the word usage makes the editorials difficult to understand and it forces the reader to have an already clear understanding of the cited facts.  If the reader can get past the technical jargon, however, the facts and language strengthens the editorials’ arguments. 

A final and interesting note about the language found in the 1949 version of the editorial page of The New York Times is the use of “the Victorian ‘we’”.  Today the use of the any sort of identifier, especially “I”, is frowned on in editorial writing, even the more acceptable “we” is avoided if it all possible in order to make the argument more fact oriented.  The editorials of 1949 use “we” liberally, however, and almost every editorial contains phrases such as “We wish him well”, “we think” and “We trust that . . .” (New York Times, July 29, 1949, 20 L).

Editorials of 1980

            While The New York Times’ editorial page from the year 1949 is very different visually from the version we are accustomed to today, the layout of the page for 1980 is very close to the design as that of the Times’ editorial page today.  The page contains three or four editorials that are clearly separated from each other by headlines that appear in large type and a distinct amount of white space.  The editorials are written in two wide columns that run an equal length, as apposed to the 1949 version.  The columns are presented in a much more readable manner.  The clear distinction between editorials makes the page more accessible to readers and makes the information easier to digest.

            By May 13, 1980 the Cold War was beginning to show signs of its end and America was beginning to emerge as the victor.  The editorial page of The New York Times reflects this.  From May 13 to May 19 there were only three editorials on the subject of the Cold War and only one of these dealt with the Soviet Union, the other two editorials concerned Cuba. 

            The topics on the editorial page were much more national and local in 1980 than in 1949.  National Preservation Week, welfare reform, the cost of health insurance, insulation standards for new buildings, teacher pension, bilingual education, exit polls, the New York-New Jersey Port Authority and other local and national issues all received coverage from May 13 to May 19 in 1980.

            The editorial page of The New York Times did remain concerned with international issues, however, but the issues had evolved.  The major international issues covered by the editorial page of 1980 were issues that can be found on the editorial page of 2001; the rising price of oil, American dependence of OPEC, the search for an alternate fuel source and the conflicts concerning Israel in the Middle East. 

            The tone of the international editorials had also changed by 1980.  The melodramatic and emotional flair of the 1949 editorials had been replaced by more logical and scientific arguments. 

“Both Moscow and Washington, in fact, appear decided that the only thing to be done in 1980 is to shore up positions for negotiations in 1981.

“To suggest some symmetry in Soviet and American behavior is not to equate their recent policies.  The Russians’ assault on Afghanistan was and remains an alarming extension of power in Asia. If their motive was only defensive, as many were to quick to claim, they could be reassuring the West that they plan no bases there aimed at the Persian Gulf. Instead they seem eager to reap offensive advantage, threatening Iran and Pakistan and testing the West” (The New York Times, May 18, 1980).

While the editorial is still condemning the Soviets, it does so in a subtler manner than the editorials of 1949. 

            Replacing the Cold War as the major issue of concern for Americans, as the editorial staff of The New York Times saw it, was the issue of energy.  Five of the seven issues of The New York Times examined from 1980 contained editorials concerning energy.  They covered the 1.1 million barrel decline of oil use in America from 1979 to 1980, supported government controls for insulation standards in new buildings, twice advocated the use of coal as an alternative to oil, supported the plans of the Coast Guard to patrol with fuel-efficient blimps and encouraged a controlled venting of krypton gasses at three-mile island to ease public concern about nuclear power.  One editorial, titled “Insulate Houses—With Red Tape”, said, “It is in everyone’s interest—not least the builders’—to get America’s neck out of the OPEC noose” (The New York Times, May 14, 1980, A 26).

            The editorials “Coal as King; Americans as Saudis” and “Looking for a catch in Coal” both propose a return to coal as a primary fuel source by Americans, instead of a continuing dependence on oil.  The editorials cite a World Coal Study that shows the low price of coal, $35 for a ton, compared to crude oil, $165 for an equivalent amount.  The study found that even after the $25 cost per ton to make coal burning meet 1980 air and water pollution standards, the coal would be considerably cheaper.

“The claim that coal can be used safely gains credence from the support of Russell Train, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who participated in the World Coal Study.  The idea is also endorsed by current E.P.A. officials

“No one thinks of coal as anything more than a transitional fuel, en route to renewable energy sources.  A solar advocate, in fact, might argue that all effort should be concentrated on developing that source more quickly.  The World Coal Study estimated that solar energy might meet about 10 percent of the nation’s needs by the year 2000” (The New York Times, May 18, 1980).

The editorialist relies on the evidence found in the World Coal Study to make his or her point, not rhetoric that is negative towards oil-producing nations. 

            The “Victorian ‘we’” has disappeared from the editorial page by 1980.  The editorialist arguments are also much clearer and easier to understand.  Part of this clarity, which did not exist in 1949, is due to the issues that the editorials address in 1980.  The issues, while complex, are not interwoven with and dependent on two or three other issues as where the issues of 1949.

Conclusion

            There is a clear and distinct difference between the editorials found in The New York Times in late July and early August of 1949 and the editorials from the same paper during May of 1980.  Structurally, there are fewer editorials in 1980 and they clearly stand apart from each other.  The format is very similar to what can be found in today’s issue of The New York Times and a far cry from the columns that ran back-to-back in 1949. 

            Verbally the editorials of 1980 are much clearer, both in language and the use of fact.  The “Victorian ‘we’” used by editorialist in 1949 is no longer in common use by 1980.  The arguments the editorialist used to get their point or points across have become less jumbled and more factual.  While the editorialist of 1949 appealed to the readers emotional side by using powerful language, the editorial writer of 1980 prefers to use logic and facts to support the argument.

            Finally the topics editorialized and the importance of national versus international issues changes.  While the Cold War is an important topic during both years, it is far less important to the editorialist of 1980.  National issues, like the rising prices of oil, have replaced the international issues of democracy versus communism.

            Despite the differences, the editorial page of 1949 and the editorial page of 1980 have the same purpose.  Each editorial is intended to inform and excite the reader about important issues of the day.  The 1949 editorials and the 1980 editorials accomplish this, but they do it in very different ways.

top