Abstract
This book begins in an unlikely place for a history of Cold War journalism: with the 2024 presidential reelection of Donald J. Trump. Yet as Zelizer deftly and quickly demonstrates, the failures of modern journalism to cover a president like Trump are deeply rooted in Cold War thinking.
Rather than call out the autocratic tendencies of this administration, explain the dangers of demolishing norms or discuss the requirements of democratic citizenship, the press has fallen back on journalistic practices established during World War II and standardized during the Cold War. Presenting the news in terms of “us” versus “them” instead of with nuance has shifted from “America” versus “Russia” to “The Left” versus “The Right.” Journalism’s insistence on sticking with what’s worked in the past has mired the profession in an occupational fixity wholly unsuited to the challenges of the present. As Zelizer breaks down in individual chapters, the Cold War practices of enmity, invisibility and outreach took hold of individuals and institutions and left the profession woefully unprepared for Donald Trump.
Understanding Cold War thinking, like enmity, or “the enemy beyond and the enemy within,” helps us understand today’s media and political climates. As Zelizer writes, enmity works “aggressively behind the scenes to reduce messy, complicated realities into a clear break between friend and foe” (p. 63). Zelizer breaks down how the press covered Senator Joseph R. McCarthy’s witch hunt for communists in America, how some journalists like Edward R. Murrow pushed back, how most journalists did not and how their failure to cover McCarthy with nuance failed the American public and bled into the Cold War and beyond. The author then moves to the Trump administration, pointing out similarities between the two cases. Enmity was a key factor in both Trump’s 2016 and 2024 victories and is a hallmark of his tenure in the White House. By giving into “us” versus “them” reporting, journalists hide behind beloved professional standards like objectivity instead of courageously showing the context and subtleties that the public needs most.
There has never been a way to cover every piece of news, but in burying some topics and highlighting others, the media is sometimes complicit in rendering important information invisible. The Cold War was not fought on any battlefield, making some aspects of the conflict easier to visualize than others. A bit of ambiguous wording here and a few imagined horrors there kept the public from questioning the viability of an ideological war. Zelizer uses maps as an example of how negative action was turned into a way to contain Communism. When news outlets could not show any real fighting, they used maps for visuals instead. Newsweek created a map labeling how far a Russian nuclear warhead would travel to reach different American cities. The New York Times mapped out points of potential conflict in Europe. TV news programs ran segments like, “You and the Atom Bomb.” Meanwhile, actual conflicts like the Korean War were left underreported. The through lines are clear between this Cold War journalism and modern journalism’s coverage of such topics as the War on Terror, the campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, and the resurgence of white supremacy. As Zelizer puts it, “It’s easy to eclipse questions about the viability or morality of war when visibility is absent” (p. 123).
Combined with outreach, or the journalistic tendency to “become cheerleaders” for outside objectives, Cold War thinking in today’s journalism becomes highly problematic. Then, outreach looked like convincing the public that their engagement was necessary for victory. Today, U.S. journalists have become spokespeople for the Left and Right, helping unsteady an already shaky republic.
Zelizer ends with a call to action for journalism to reject Cold War standards and adapt to the present media climate. “In shrinking coverage in ways detrimental to public understanding, their overdue retirement speaks not only to the viability of journalism but to the future of journalism itself,” she writes. “It’s hard to imagine a more critical reason for journalism to change” (p. 157). That begins with the industry admitting its failures, Media Left and Media Right learning from each other, and recognizing that outdated practices no longer serve the profession or the public.
This book is well-considered, readable and makes a compelling argument. It creates opportunities to reflect on and question a number of threadbare journalistic standards. While perhaps too dense in parts for undergraduate reading, it will be a welcome addition for those wishing to understand how the media got to where it is today. It also helps lay a roadmap for those who wish to help journalism become better. When finished, it is impossible to deny the title’s assertion: the Cold War broke the news. With the research laid out by Zelizer and others, it may still be possible to put it back together again.