Everybody loves a good “Whodunit.” Although American Journalism does not publish murder mysteries, we have a page-turning author mystery in this issue of the journal. Sid Bedingfield tells the story of John G. Briggs Jr., a respected music critic and reporter for the New York Times, who wrote columns for the Charleston (SC) News and Courier under the pseudonym “Nicholas Stanford.” In his columns, written between 1955 and 1958, Briggs published blistering attacks on the “liberal media,” including the Times, for what he argued was its bias against the South. For more than fifty years, the story of Briggs and his dual role was a secret until Bedingfield uncovered it while conducting research in the personal papers of Thomas R. Waring Jr., the editor of the News and Courier, who was part of the deception. Beyond answering the question of “Who was Nicholas Stanford,” his research sheds light on a period when the argument about the “liberal media” was still fairly new. As Bedingfield writes, the work of Briggs and Waring helps illuminate the underlying premise that gave the argument much of its rhetorical power.
Cynthia Myers explores The March of Time, the innovative 1930s radio docudrama created to promote Time magazine. Created by the advertising agency, Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborn, The March of Time shows the effect of sponsor control of radio program content on the development of early radio journalism. In his article, Brooks Fuller examines the Raleigh (NC) News and Observer’s Progressive Era coverage of the Ku Klux Klan. In its reporting of the hate group, the News and Observer demonstrated some ways the southern press dealt with issues of identity related to free speech, long before the courts recognized identity as a legitimate free-speech value. Patrick File explores the journalism trade press’s role in influencing public opinion about libel law at the end of the nineteenth century. The press claimed to adopt professional values such as independence and impartiality, at the same time that it actively advocated for legal change on its own behalf.
Once again, this last issue of the year gives us the opportunity to publicly thank the many scholars who kindly gave their time to contribute manuscript reviews to American Journalism. Publishing a journal like this would not be possible without the exacting and rigorous critiques of manuscripts that reviewers provide. Thanks to all for your important service to American Journalism.