Psychological Armor: The Science News-Letter Warns Against Propaganda (1926–1965)

ABSTRACT

The Science Service, established in 1921 by newspaper magnate, Edward Willis “E.W.” Scripps, and zoologist, William E. Ritter, was founded to educate the public about science. The overarching aims of the Service were to instill in the public a scientific habit of mind and improve the public's critical thinking skills, thereby strengthening democracy. The Service acted as a liaison between scientists and the public by disseminating accessible scientific information through a variety of media, including The Science News-Letter. Service founders maintained that the agency would not promulgate propaganda “unless it be propaganda to urge the value of research and the usefulness of science.” Between the first and second world wars, the Service began an anti-propaganda campaign in its newsletter; cautioning readers about the dangers of propaganda, describing how to recognize propaganda, and explaining how to defend against it – providing the public with “psychological armor” in the words of Science Service writer, Marjorie Van de Water. Between 1926 and 1965, 187 newsletter articles included the keyword “propaganda.” This essay identifies, examines, and places in context, newsletter articles on propaganda and argues that, in spite of the organization's stated mission, aspects of its counterpropaganda crusade veered into the realm of propaganda.

KEYWORDS:

• E.W. Scripps
• Marjorie Van de Water
• propaganda
• science journalism
• Science Service
• The Science News-Letter
• William Ritter

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Dataset

The dataset underlying the analysis in this essay is located at: https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/z4jc73tsrd/1

DOI: 10.17632/z4jc73tsrd.1

ORCID

Susan E. Swanberg http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7487-7065

Notes

1 In contrast, Walter Lippmann, who had reservations about participatory democracy and the public's ability to see beyond stereotypes, recommended governance by a cadre of elite intelligentsia. The Dewey-Lippmann “debates” about democracy and the educability of the public were renowned and continue to this day. (Westbrook 1991; Bybee 1999; Whipple 2005).

2 For a comprehensive list of Science Service activities as of 1932 see “The Public's Way to Science” and “The Activities of Science Service” found in the front matter of the April 23, 1932 issue of the News-Letter.

3 The deficit model of science communication, which has been roundly criticized, suggests that the public understanding of science can be improved by increasing the amount of science knowledge effectively communicated to the public. (Sturgis and Allum 2004; Miller 1983, 1998; Nisbet and Scheufele 2009; Simis et al. 2016; Kahan, Jamieson, and Scheufele 2017).

4 Scripps's interest in eugenics was reflected in News-Letter articles including “A Goal for Eugenics” 1928 and “Good Home Conditions … ” 1936; as well as in his archived writings on the topic (including Scripps 1908a, 1908b). See Scripps's searchable digital archive at https://cdm15808.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/scripps For a discussion of progressive reformers paradoxically embracing eugenics, see Thomas Leonard (2017).

5 Partisan coverage in the News-Letter included anti-war articles such as: Anti-War Document Pioneers … 1935; “Groups Differ on How to Keep America Out of War” 1939; “Anti-War Prescription” 1949; and an article about the defense of Goodwin Watson, “Psychological Association … ” 1943. For more about the Goodwin Watson controversy see Nicholson (1997).

6 The American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) code of ethics, passed in 1923 and unaltered for decades, states in Canon V “[s]ound practice makes clear distinction between news reports and expressions of opinion. News reports should be free from opinion or bias of any kind.” The ASNE code was merely advisory, however, and was not enforced by any disciplinary protocol (Code of Ethics 1923; Saalberg 1973).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by a 2017–2018 fellowship from the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at the University of Arizona.