“If I went through anguish in botany and economics – for different reasons – gymnasium work was even worse. I don’t even like to think about it. They wouldn’t let you plays games or join in the exercises with your glasses on and I couldn’t see with mine off. I bumped into professors, horizontal bars, agricultural students, and swinging iron rings…. In order to pass gymnasium (and you had to pass it to graduate) I had to pass a swimming test. I did not like swimming and the swimming instructor, and after all these years I still don’t. I never swam but I passed my gym work anyway, by having another student give my gymnasium number (978) and swam across the pool in my place….Another thing I didn't like about gymnasium work was that they made you strip the day you registered. It is impossible for me to be happy when I am stripped and being asked a lot of questions.”—American humorist James Thurber (1894-1961), “University Days,” in My Life and Hard Times (1933)
Friday, September 4, 2020
Thursday, September 3, 2020
This Day in Media History (Marguerite Higgins, First Woman to Win Pulitzer for International Reporting, Born)
Sept. 3, 1920—Marguerite Higgins, who overcame the rampant sexism of her time and profession to become the first female winner of the Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting, was born in Hong Kong, in the Asia-Pacific Rim where she would establish much of her reputation.
In the Library of America anthology Reporting World War II, Higgins was the last by birth among the
approximately 80 writers represented. A day shy of 25 when Japan formally
surrendered, she reported on some of the major stories coming out of the latest
six months of the European conflict: the refugee crisis and the liberation of
the Buchenwald and Dachau concentration camps.
These would have been great scoops for any reporter.
They were extraordinary for a recent graduate of the Columbia Graduate School
of Journalism and a woman in an unrelieved, unapologetic masculine environment.
But it was in Asia—specifically, in Korea and Vietnam—where
Higgins advanced closer to achieving her stated post-collegiate goal of becoming more famous than Dorothy Thompson, perhaps the most influential female journalist of the day. How she moved towards
her goal has made her the subject of speculation and even controversy ever
since.
Stationed in Tokyo as the New York Herald Tribune’s
Bureau Chief, Higgins was ideally situated to cover the outbreak of hostilities
in Korea in 1950. Despite her credentials as a war correspondent in WWII, she
was initially ordered out of the country by Gen. Walton Walker.
Only a direct appeal to Douglas MacArthur, who had
become Commander in Chief of the United Nations Command in Korea, enabled her to report on the conflict. She joined MacArthur's troops on the daring invasion at Inchon that, for a time, changed the direction
of the war. In fact, she was the only female reporter to land on Red Beach (“a
rough, vertical pile of stones”) with the men.
The Pulitzer Prize committee cited
Higgins’ "enterprise and courage" in her coverage of the campaign, noting that she deserved "special consideration by reason of being a woman." But even as she was winning a
new level of renown, she was stirring animosity among the largely male cadre of
war correspondents that would dog her even beyond her early death.
Thousands of readers were amazed at how Higgins
smashed through conventions that restricted women’s chances for achievement; a
smaller cadre of colleagues were disgruntled at how they believed she ignored
traditional ethical codes in pursuit of her laurels. It is still not easy
sorting through these issues more than a half-century after her death.
While displaying outward bravado, Higgins was inwardly driven by an insecurity so unrelenting that it manifested itself as bravery so extreme that some males believe it shaded into foolhardiness. (Among them was Herald Tribune colleague Homer Bigart, who, like Gen. Walker, wanted her out of the country--leading not just to heightened competition between the two journalists but also to a closely watched feud between the two.)
Such aggressiveness might be taken for granted among male reporters
but were eyed critically when exhibited by females—and led to speculation that
Higgins was not above stealing colleagues’ scoops.
Another serious charge against her arose from her good
looks. Anyone glimpsing the stunning blonde in the attached photo might be forgiven for thinking that Betty Grable or even
Marilyn Monroe had suddenly morphed into a top-flight journalist.
Those same people were often convinced that someone that glamorous could not have succeeded through her own efforts, but by sleeping with important men to further her career.
In the process, these critics ignored
factors that facilitated her work—knowledge of French and Chinese;
extraordinary sympathy and compassion for young soldiers that sealed their bond
with her; and willingness to endure extreme discomfort and danger.
(Ironically, when particularly obsessed with a story,
Higgins was so oblivious to how she looked that she neglected to clean her
face.)
Opinion remains divided to what extent those charges
were true. But, if ruthlessness in pursuing scoops and straying outside
traditional sexual norms are to be assessed, many if not most of Higgins’ male
rivals would be as guilty as she.
A third charge against Higgins is more troubling: that, through personal associations and ideological preconceptions, she abandoned objectivity in her reporting on the early days of the Vietnam War.
In 1963, younger reporters such as David Halberstam and Neil Sheehan were making plain in their dispatches that South Vietnamese forces were collapsing in the Mekong Delta. Based on her high-ranking military sources, Higgins disagreed strongly, airing their view that the Viet Cong were being progressively crushed. Any problem in Southeast Asia had resulted from journalists accepting at face value the notion that Buddhists in Vietnam were being oppressed by President Ngo Dinh Diem's "Catholic-dominated government":
"In the fall of 1963 Washington went into the
business of hiring and firing governments,” Higgins charged in Our Vietnam Nightmare. “We not only forgot the one overriding priority, the
war effort, but also, for the first time in history, conspired in the ouster of
an ally in the middle of a common war against the Communist enemy, thus
plunging the country and the war effort into a steep spiral of decline."
Higgins was ill-prepared to examine the reality of
Vietnam dispassionately. In 1947, she had witnessed how Communists employed
deception in taking over Poland. Friendly with both Jack Kennedy and Lyndon
Johnson, she had adopted their view of the need to counter Soviet aggression.
And, in 1952, she had married William Evens Hall, an Air Force Lt. General.
Vietnam undermined the credibility of a fellow
journalist who accepted the government line, columnist Joe Alsop. Long before
that happened, a tropical disease contracted in that country led to Higgins’
death in 1966 at age 45. She is one of a handful of war correspondents buried
at Arlington National Cemetery.
During her lifetime, Americans became very familiar with the sight of Higgins—in well-attended lectures, her book covers (War in Korea: The Report of a Woman Combat Correspondent and News is a Singular Thing), and TV appearances (in 1956, the quiz show What’s My Line?).
Though her celebrity has faded, her face and story have still
attracted enough posthumous attention to land her on a postage stamp (in 2002)
and have made her the best-known character in a little-noticed film about the early days of
the Korean War last year, The Battle of Jangsari.
I have not yet seen that movie, but in a sense its most famous cast member, Megan Fox, should be able to identify intensely with
Higgins. In both women’s cases, men were so besotted by their looks that they
sometimes had a difficult time taking their drive and work seriously. Time will
tell how well Fox counteracts that perception.
Quote of the Day (Pat Jordan, on What Made Tom Terrific)
“Some pitchers are pit bulls for a batter, an inning, a stretch of innings, a game, even a season. Tom Seaver was a pit bull on every pitch, every batter, every out, every inning, every game, every season for twenty years until he retired at forty-two. The depth of his concentration was unparalleled in the game of baseball.”—American sportswriter (and former minor league pitcher) Pat Jordan, Tom Seaver and Me (2020)
Baseball Hall of Fame pitcher Tom Seaver died Monday at
age 75 of complications of Lewy body dementia and COVID-19. But in my mind’s
eye—and, I suspect, for many others—the Mets great will forever be 25, leading
a team with a reputation as lovable losers to a world championship on the
strength of his right arm, keen intelligence and iron will, in a troubled era
when New York City needed something and somebody to cheer about.
For all that, “The Franchise” won the hearts of Mets fans—and
commanded the enduring respect of aficionados of every team in the major
leagues.
Wednesday, September 2, 2020
Photo of the Day: The Battering of Small Business
Over the last decade or so, I’ve gotten used to small businesses posting closing notices in my hometown of Englewood, NJ. But this past week, the sight of three adjacent businesses with such signs was so stunning that it moved me to take this photograph.
What is happening in my community is being replicated
on a wider scale across America now, as Congress flounders around deciding what
to do, unable to figure out which components of the first round of massive aid
rushed out this spring were most effective.
A front-page article in The New York Times
today outlined the challenge being faced now: “The economic recovery that
took hold in the spring is losing momentum. The fall will bring new challenges:
Colder weather will curtail outdoor dining and other weather-dependent
adaptations that helped businesses hang on in much of the country, and
epidemiologists warn that the winter could bring a surge in coronavirus cases.”
Small businesses rightly fear what lies ahead. The
Census Bureau reports that the share of small businesses who expect that it
will take more than six months for business to return to normal has risen from
about a third in late April to nearly half by the end of August. More
frighteningly, about 5 percent now say they expect to close permanently in the
next six months.
Democrats and Republicans diverge in how they view two
of the principal programs to keep the economy afloat.
The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) experienced some pains in being rolled out, with a House oversight committee reporting Tuesday that thousands of its loans for small businesses impacted by COVID-10 were awarded improperly to firms that already had received a PPP loan or were barred from doing business with the federal government, according to Ledyard King and Nicholas Wu's reporting in USA Today.
Bludgeoned for years by the GOP about the “waste,
fraud and abuse” of their own social programs, the Democrats have not been shy
in criticizing the same fault in the Trump-administered PPPs. Moreover, they
would like to limit the number of employees of firm recipients to be no more than
100, while Republicans on Capitol Hill want the cap to go up to 300 employees.
On the other hand, Republicans object that the
now-lapsed $600 weekly supplement to state unemployment benefits acted as a
disincentive to work. But it is increasingly apparent that the supplement
boosted consumption enough to keep many marginal businesses from falling into
the abyss.
The price of inadequately supporting small businesses
will shortly be experienced in a way that will make lawmakers rue their
squabbling.
For years, small businesses have been the greatest
generator of U.S. job growth. In fact, small businesses account for nearly half
of jobs in the private sector. They have created additional benefits, too, as
they have:
*allowed thousands of Americans to work independently,
encouraging this nation’s longtime ideal of self-reliance;
*acted as a necessary counterweight to large
corporations with major national influence but few roots in local communities;
*enhanced community identity and cohesion;
*fostered family life through local jobs close to
home;
*pump tax revenues into the community;
*required less maintenance and infrastructure.
Say goodbye to all that now. All those handouts with tips
for running such enterprises will make no difference in the current environment
without government aid.
Keep in mind this statistic: Even with the combined
effects of the PPP loans, the $1,200 stimulus checks, the $600 weekly
unemployment supplements and many states hastily rolling back lockdown
restrictions, unemployment was still 10.2% in July. Without a COVID-19 vaccine,
when does the administration and Congress expect business conditions to return
to normal? Until that happens, how do they expect small businesses--the lifeblood of American communities--to survive?
Congress should put aside posturing and polarization
to compromise on another aid package that will continue to buoy consumers—and
the small businesses that depend on their patronage—or bear responsibility for
the resulting long-term damage to institutions whose loss will leave this nation commercially and emotionally poorer.






