This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction is expressly forbidden. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources.
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction is expressly forbidden. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources.
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction is expressly forbidden. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources.
This article was downloaded by [HlAl-link Consortium]
On 1z April zc11 Access details Access Details [subscription number v!1ccee!v] Publisher Routledge lnforma ltd Registered in lngland and Wales Registered Number 1czv1 Registered office Mortimer House, !- 11 Mortimer Street, london W1T !JH, UK Critical Studies in Media Communication Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information http//www.informaworld.com/smpp/title-contentt1!vz!e Achieving journalistic authority through narrative Barbie Zelizer a a Assistant Professor in the Department of Rhetoric and Communication, Temple University, To cite this Article Zelizer, Barbie(1vvc) 'Achieving journalistic authority through narrative', Critical Studies in Media Communication, 1, !ee !e To link to this Article DOl 1c.1ccc/1zvc!vccv!ec1c URl http//dx.doi.org/1c.1ccc/1zvc!vccv!ec1c Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7 (1990), 366-376 Achieving Journalistic Authority Through Narrative BARBIE ZELIZER This paper examines how journalists have used three narrative strategies synecdoche, omission, and personalizationto assert their authority in their retell- ings of the Kennedy assassination. By giving themselves a central position within the story, journalists have helped make the assassination story a tale as much about American journalists as about Kennedy's death. T HE ROLE of journalists as storytellers who adapt news events to an underlying narrative structure (e.g., Barkin & Gurevitch, 1987; Bennett & Edelman, 1985; Darnton, 1975; Knight & Dean, 1982) rests on their ability to legitimate themselves through the narratives they use. It is now commonly assumed that journalists can be biased, subjective narrators of "real world" events (Fishman, 1980; Glasgow Univer- sity Media Group, 1976, 1980; Gitlin, 1980; Tuchman, 1978). Yet the specific practices by which journalists in effect reconstruct events have not yet been suffi- ciently articulated. This article considers how narrative practice allows journalists to "authorize" their versions of events and reify their authoritative status to audiences. Here I focus on the legitimation of journalists through narrative, not only as part of the story but as its core. Journalists position themselves in their stories by constructing, documenting, and perpetuating their authority to retell events. In a society that places a premium on journalistic modes of storytelling, understanding the means by which legitimacy is built and maintained is essential. Coverage of the assassination of John F. Kennedy illustrates such a process. Positing journalistic authority as an "ideal type," the study uses what Glaser and Strauss (1967) call a "strategically chosen example" to track out its presence in both mediated and professional discourse. The analysis is based on systematic examina- tion of the public discourse by which journalists have recollected their part in covering the assassination. The study employed diachronic textual analysis on narratives taken from the printed press, professional and trade reviews, television retrospectives, film documentaries, and books that appeared between 1963 and 1989. Discourse about the role of journalists in covering the assassination was explored via contemporaneous citations found in a number of public affairs indices. 1 The Barbie Zelizer is Assistant Professor in the Department of Rhetoric and Communication, Temple University. This article is based on the author's doctoral dissertation (Zelizer, 1990). The author thanks Larry Gross, Amy Jordan, Pamela Sankar, and Lois Silverman for their comments on its various drafts. Copyright 1990, SCA D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ H E A L - L i n k
C o n s o r t i u m ]
A t :
1 8 : 2 1
1 2
A p r i l
2 0 1 1 367 GSMC ZELIZER methodology offers a clearer picture of the major patterns by which journalistic authority can be expected to emerge in narrative. HOW AUTHORITY WORKS THROUGH NARRATIVE From Weber to Habermas, theorists have long been concerned with the rational aims that speakers address through language. Habermas, in particular, maintained that speakers use language to effect various kinds of consensus about their activity (Habermas, 1981, pp. xxiv-xxv). Scholars have argued that narrative provides an underlying logic for implementing more general communicative rules and conven- tions (e.g., Barthes, 1977; White, 1980). 2 It is thus no surprise that storytellers employ a broad range of narrative and stylistic devices to uphold their own status and prestige. Narrative's role in achieving authority becomes particularly relevant when we consider the evolution of particular stories over time, as the original events become increasingly remote. Research holds that over time, narrators are able to reposition themselves vis-a-vis original events, thereby reconfiguring their authority (Smith, 1978; White, 1980). These premises are directly relevant to journalists, whose work has been long characterized as an entanglement of narrative, authority, and rhetorical legitimation (e.g., Carey, 1986; Eason, 1986; Schudson, 1982). While all professional groups are constituted by formalized bodies of knowledge, much of journalists' professional authority lies not in what they know but in what they do with their knowledge. Freidson (1986) contends that, particularly in cases where legitimation is effected through rhetoric, concrete decisions about practical problems displace knowledge altogether. What journalists do in covering a given storywho they interview or how they tell the talethus becomes as important as the degree of knowledge they possess. RETELLING THE ASSASSINATION The story of John Kennedy's assassination is a critical incident among journalism professionals (Gerbner, 1973), who have used it to evaluate and reconsider consen- sual notions about professional practice and appropriate boundaries of journalistic authority. Retellings of Kennedy's assassination produced a huge body of literature, including nearly 200 books within 36 months of his death, hundreds of periodical pieces, television retrospectives, and at least 12 newsletters (Donner, 1979; Logan, 1967). In all media, names of individual reporters were thrust forward, often in front of the names of their organizational employers, as emblems of authority for the events of those four November days. Journalists were not the only ones vying to retell what had happened, especially when conspiracy theories gained credibility during the late 1960s. By that time, in Dan Rather's words, "newsmen, police, intelligence agencies had examined the evidence" (Four Days in November, 1988), as well as historians, novelists, and screenplay writers. One suggestion that journalists would not play an understated role was found in Newsweek correspondent Charles Roberts's early critique of assassination buff Mark Lane. Roberts complained that Lane, who provided "the D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ H E A L - L i n k
C o n s o r t i u m ]
A t :
1 8 : 2 1
1 2
A p r i l
2 0 1 1 368 ACHIEVING JOURNALISTIC AUTHORITY DECEMBER 1990 only complete published list of witnesses" to the assassination, failed to include "some 50 Washington correspondents who were on press buses" (Roberts, 1967, p. 15). As early as 1967, then, journalists promoted themselves as central players in establishing the official record of Kennedy's assassination. In part, journalists' attempts to connect themselves to the assassination narrative reflected larger journalistic concerns about professionalism. To start, journalists were attempting to consolidate themselves as a recognized and legitimate profession. As Halberstam put it, questions of who would define newspeople in positions of power or people in the streetschallenged journalists to experiment with new standards of professional behavior. Both "new journalism" and the alternative press sprouted in response to their concerns (Halberstam, 1979). The emerging channel of television news, then called a "journalistic frivolity" (Gates, 1978, p. 5), was also beginning to reshape many givens about journalistic performance. A few months before the assassination, television journalists were still being denied membership in professional organizations, because they were not considered bona fide reporters. 3 Finally, ties between the journalistic community and Kennedy's administration helped create an atmosphere in which journalists could effectively champion their positions as primary spokespeople for events. Kennedy was seen as having a particular affinity for television, as suggested by his performance in the 1960 TV debates, his introduction of the first televised news conferences, and his informal television interviews, all of which earned him the title of "the first television president" (Weisman, 1988, p. 2). Against this background, the assassination narrative had implications for reporters as professionals. They relied upon three main strategies to tell the assassination story and, at the same time, assert their authority in its telling. These strategies synecdoche, omission, and personalizationwere invoked both alone and in tandem to represent the events that took place in Dallas. SYNECDOCHE Synecdochethe narrative strategy by which the part is called to "stand in" for the wholeallows journalists to borrow the authority accrued from having covered certain events and apply it to events they did not experience. Through synecdoche, journalists retelling their assassination accounts enlarged the story to incorporate elements that included them within it. For example, New York Times reporter Tom Wicker used a rifle being withdrawn from a window in the Texas Schoolbook Depository to stand in for witnessing Kennedy's shooting (Wicker, 1964, p. 81). A bullet being pumped into Lee Harvey Oswald's stomach was used to signify the shooting of Kennedy's presumed killer (Pettit, 1963). A foot sticking into the air from the back of the presidential limousine was used to signify Kennedy's death (Mayo, 1967, p. 142). The best illustration of synecdochic retelling is in journalists' efforts to turn their assassination coverage from a problematic performance into a professional triumph. Coverage of the assassination began, in Wicker's words, "when it was all over" (Wicker, 1964, p. 81). The coverage was prompt and comprehensive but fraught with problems: Journalists did not see Kennedy shot, sometimes did not hear D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ H E A L - L i n k
C o n s o r t i u m ]
A t :
1 8 : 2 1
1 2
A p r i l
2 0 1 1 369 CSMC ZELIZER Kennedy shot, chronicled reports on the basis of hearsay and rumor, lacked access to recognizable and authoritative sources, and processed faulty information (Greenberg & Parker, 1965; Payne, 1970). Proven journalistic methodssuch as relying on eyewitness status, accessing high-ranking sources, or verifying factswere all unhelpful; the speed with which information could be transmitted outpaced the reporters' ability to gather it. They simply could not keep up in front of one of the largest audiences in media history. Journalists' professionalism was further challenged by the active involvement of amateurs and lay persons, who gave the most detailed eyewitness testimony (Warren Commission, 1964). Photographic documentation, including the famous Zapruder film, was provided not by the 50-some journalists riding in the presidential motor- cade but by local merchants, homemakers, business people, and other amateurs. 4 Coverage of the assassination was in effect a situation of journalistic failure, falsifying journalists' authority for covering the event. Their authority had to be constructed not through their actions but through their narratives about those actions. They had to turn the assassination into an event that included them. Journalists achieved this by telling the assassination story through one larger narrative that had two high points: Oswald's murder and Kennedy's funeral. Journalists covered Oswald's murder in what came to be called exemplary fashion. Broadcasting magazine labeled their capture of his shooting on live camera a "first in television history" ("Oswald shooting a first in television history," 1963, p. 46). Similarly, in their coverage of Kennedy's funeral, journalists made themselves masters of ceremonies who actively helped to heal the nation (Katz & Dayan, in press). These two aspects prompted observers to tout the whole coverage as a major triumph. Journalists catered to these notions in their stories about the event. They made the assassination narrative into one long story that extended from Friday, when Kennedy was shot, until the following Monday, when he was buried. By doing so, they overstated their successes and underplayed their failures. By treating their successful coveragethe funeral and the shooting of Oswaldas if it represented all journalis- tic performances of the assassination weekend, they turned aside potential criticism of their performance. Using parts of the narrative to signify the whole worked to their advantage. Journalists' lack of eyewitness status in Kennedy's shooting was resolved by their presence both at his funeral and at Oswald's murder. Issues of fact verification appeared less salient once the fact of Kennedy's death and Oswald's role in it were confirmed. Source accessibility played less of a role as non-official eyewitnesses, usually bystanders, recounted what had happened. Disjunctions between the rapid pace of information relaymade possible by wire services, radio, and television and the slower pace of journalists' information gathering became less central by the time of the funeral, where little information-gathering was necessary. Therefore, many problems of coverage on the day Kennedy was shot were resolved by the day he was buried. Synecdoche helped journalists assume responsibility for events that went beyond their personal experience. It also masked some of the problems implied by certain dimensions of their coverage. Synecdochic retellings were complicated by the variety of media involved. For D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ H E A L - L i n k
C o n s o r t i u m ]
A t :
1 8 : 2 1
1 2
A p r i l
2 0 1 1 370 ACHIEVING JOURNALISTIC AUTHORITY DECEMBER 1990 example, technology was portrayed as central to the accomplishment of journalistic work, and photographs, films, and other media technologies all let journalists reconstruct their role in the assassination in a way that let them take responsibility for the work of others. The adoption of one long narrative, however, worked to the specific advantage of television. It was within the parameters of the television narrative that extended from Friday to Monday that the basic assassination narrative took shape. The larger narrative not only told the story of Kennedy's assassination and burial, but it conveyed the difficulties, tribulations, and triumphs of television reporters trying to cover those events. Telling the assassination story thereby became entwined with telling the story of its television coverage. Synecdoche was also called into the service of intra-professional positioning in a battle for legitimacy within the journalistic community. By rearranging their narratives, journalists sought to uphold the legitimacy of certain reporting channels (television and press) over others (radio), as well as the legitimacy of one reporting community (national) over another (local). The role of (national) television was used to signify that of the American press corps. Not only did the general journalistic coverage substitute one set of events for another, but synecdoche helped shape professional in-fighting, ensuring that national television and the national press were given a central role within the assassination narrative. Thus synecdoche took a variety of forms. It allowed journalists, particularly television journalists, to emerge as authoritative spokespeople, regardless of what they personally had done, seen, or heard. Similar strategies can be found in other kinds of news. Jamieson, for instance, discusses synecdochic representation as a predicated form of all television news (Jamieson, 1988). Bybee's analysis of gender construction in local news implies a similar practice (Bybee, 1990). This suggests that many features of retelling work to position journalists as omnipresent and omniscient observers, uniquely qualified to relate events to the public. OMISSION A second strategy used in retelling the assassination story was omission. Like synecdoche, it invokes activities of rearrangement, but it also offered a distinct way of adjusting details to fit larger goals of authority. Journalists rearranged the times, people, and places associated with the original events of the assassination. Left out of retellings were the various roles played by radio, local media, and amateurs. Radio offers the most glaring example of how central aspects of assassination events were omitted from the assassination narrative. Although most television retrospectives employed radio broadcasts as background when discussing television's part in covering the assassination, few identified radio's coverageeither by me- dium, network, or individual reporter. Films showed journalists huddled outside Parkland Hospital, clutching notepads and pencils, listening to radio journalists paraphrase intermittent wire service accounts of what had happened (JFK, 1983). Yet no mention was made of radio's role in this scenario. Books and articles repeated fragments from vaguely referenced "radio broadcasters." In nearly every case, the role of radio was simply erased from journalistic recollections of the events in Dallas. Narratives also neutralized the importance of local media, whose assistance in covering the assassination was essential for getting the story out. Local media were D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ H E A L - L i n k
C o n s o r t i u m ]
A t :
1 8 : 2 1
1 2
A p r i l
2 0 1 1 371 CSMC ZELIZER immediately hailed for their help (Van der Karr, 1965); yet today they are unmentioned in assassination recollections. In other rearrangements of assassination coverage, particular people disappeared from the story. For example, CBS reporter Eddie Barker, then local news director of the Dallas affiliate, provided the first unconfirmed report that Kennedy was dead ( U A World Listened and Watched," 1963, p. 40). Dan Rather, also at the scene, followed Barker's dispatch with two unofficial confirmations. Only then was Kennedy's death officially established. Barker's role in the story, however, is today mentioned in only the most extensive and detailed assassination accounts. Emphasized instead are the activities of the better-known and more prestigious Rather (e.g., Gates, 1978; Matusow, 1983). Narratives also displaced the controversy surrounding television's possible facilita- tion of Lee Harvey Oswald's death. The intruding presence of journalists in the corridor where Oswald was shotthe cables, equipment, sheer numbers of reporters generated many official and professional censures of journalistic behavior (Judg- ment by television, 1964; Warren Commission, 1964). 5 A section of the Warren Commission Report on u The Activity of Newsmen" examined the problematic aspects of journalists' performance in Dallas (pp. 201-208). Yet today that dimen- sion of journalistic behavior in Dallas is rarely mentioned. Contemporary renditions of the Oswald story have instead recast it as the professional triumph that was implicit in the scoop of having caught the murder on live camera. Each of these omissions was linked with larger discourses about journalistic professionalism and legitimation. Understating the role of radio, amateurs, and local media overstated the role of television, journalism professionals, and national media. The downplaying of television's culpability in Oswald's death supported emergent definitions about what it meant to be a journalism professional, particularly in television. Omission thus reflected ongoing discourses about the rightful boundaries of journalistic authority, with the narrative that endured emphasizing the profession- alism of national journalists, particularly television reporters, in covering the story. Strategies of journalistic omission can be seen in other events. Kinsella's chilling chronology of AIDS coverage documents how major events were omitted from the news until they were seen as personally relevant to those writing the story (Kinsella, 1989). Vincent, Crow, and Davis (1989) make a similar point about irrational explanations being omitted from coverage of airline crashes because such explana- tions fail to uphold the goal of reassuring the public. Journalists thus assert their authoritative status when retelling the news by omitting features of its telling that undermine, shadow, or contradict their authority. PERSONALIZATION A third strategy for retelling the assassination is personalization. Reporters recollected the assassination in terms of their own experiences. Journalists first personalized the story by referencing their familiarity with the events of Dallas, usually through their physical presence there during the assassina- tion weekend. Journalists wrote and spoke of their eyewitness experiences under titles that underscored their authority for events. Newsweek reporter Charles Roberts detailed what he saw in an article called "Eyewitness in Dallas" (Roberts, D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ H E A L - L i n k
C o n s o r t i u m ]
A t :
1 8 : 2 1
1 2
A p r i l
2 0 1 1 372 ACHIEVING JOURNALISTIC AUTHORITY DECEMBER 1990 1966). Time correspondent Hugh Sidey authorized his account of the Kennedy presidency by noting that "I was with him in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963. Few correspondents who were there will ever forget that day" (Sidey, 1963, pp. vi-vii). In one of his books, New York Times correspondent Tom Wicker noted that his "two years as White House correspondent included coverage of President Kennedy's assassination" (Wicker, 1968, p. 299). Pictures from the assassination weekend were reproduced with markers encircling reporters' heads or torsos. The article by Roberts reproduced a photograph of the author at the LBJ swearing-in aboard Air Force One. In the picture, thick white arrows point at the reporter's head, positioned behind that of the vice-president (Roberts, 1966, p. 26). A book by the same author reproduced on its back flap a picture of his Dallas press credentials (Roberts, 1967). Television retrospectives began by setting out the November 1963 presence of their narrators, detailing exactly where in Dallas they had been. Reporter Steve Bell, who had been a national correspondent at the time, recollected the 25th anniversary of Kennedy's death on the evening news in the following way: In Omaha, Nebraska, this young reporter and his wife had just been told by the doctor that our first child would be born any day now. Then the President was dead, and I was sent to Dallas to cover the aftermath (John F. Kennedy Remembered, 1988). The program then documented not only what had happened when Kennedy was shot but what else Bell had done in Dallas. It included footage of Bell's original televised coverage. Journalists also documented their efforts to be present at the events in Dallas. u At the time the shots were fired, I was an hour and a half out of Honolulu," wrote Kennedy's press secretary, Pierre Salinger, who then turned around the air carrier on which he was traveling and flew back to Washington (Salinger, 1983, p. 20). Twenty-five years after the event, when television reporter Edwin Newman was called upon to narrate NBC's opus 6V2-hour reconstruction of events, he began by noting that U I myself, having been told that I would be going to Dallas, went instead to Washington on a plane NBC had chartered" {JFK Assassination, 1988). Reporter John Chancellor introduced another television retrospective by talking about his experiences in Berlin at the time Kennedy was shot (The Week We Lost JFK, 1989). Left unclear in both cases was why their experiences gave these particular reporters special authority to speak about the events of Kennedy's death. Personalization thus allowed media institutions to invoke the experiences of certain journalists as legitimate reconstructions of the assassination story. 6 But by positioning themselves in the narrative through personal experience, journalists blurred the fact that working from afar might be a flawed way to cover the assassination weekend. The fact that personalized narrative was held up by news organizations as a legitimate way to recollect the assassination story reinforced its importance. Wittingly or not, it also set up a credible framework by which to legitimate certain journalists as narrators of the assassination story, regardless of their actual role in covering it. Like the other strategies of retelling, personalization does not apply only to the Kennedy assassination. It is found in stories about Watergate, whose events have D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ H E A L - L i n k
C o n s o r t i u m ]
A t :
1 8 : 2 1
1 2
A p r i l
2 0 1 1 373 CSMC ZELIZER been linked with a blow-by-blow account of the journalistic expose (Woodward & Bernstein, 1976) and in stories about Ronald Reagan, in which journalists have fitted their tales to those supported by personal encounters and oral communication (Schudson, 1990). The centrality of personalization in narrative underscores yet another way in which narrative is used to assert the narrator's authoritative status. CONCLUSION This article has discussed how journalists used three narrative devices synecdoche, omission, and personalizationto strengthen their authority in report- ing the Kennedy assassination. Each strategy allowed them to perpetuate forms of the assassination tale that upheld, rather than detracted from, their own professional positioning inside it. Assassination narratives accommodated the presence of journal- ists as part of the tale. These strategies of retelling were suited to larger discourses about journalism. One was the authorization of television technology. In introducing CBS's 1988 Four Days in November, narrator Dan Rather provided a detailed overview of the state of television technology at the time of the assassination {Four Days in November, 1988). When separated from the visuals that documented the story of Kennedy's death, Rather's words told us the story not of Kennedy but of television and, more specifically, of the rise of Dan Rather within that medium. The other discourse was a regard for the original coverage of Kennedy's death as professional behavior. In a nostalgic commemorative piece in Time, reporter Meg Greenfield discussed how her professional identity dated to the day that Kennedy was killed (Greenfield, 1988, p. 98). Kennedy's death was viewed as a locus for situating the professional behavior of journalists. The fact that both discoursesabout journalistic professionalism and television journalismconsolidated the more general position of journalists as authoritative spokespeople for events sheds light on the workings of journalistic authority. This consolidation shows how, in the particular case of the Kennedy assassination, journalists used narrative strategies to enhance their authority in ways that extended beyond their original connection to the events of Kennedy's death. Their strategies of retelling upheld their positioning through links to larger discourses that were themselves invested in legitimating journalists. And what of other events? This study suggests the centrality of narrative technique in consolidating the authority of narrators. In events as varied as plane crashes, unemployment, AIDS, and Watergate, narrative strategies uphold and assert the authoritative status of storytellers. This suggests that authority takes shape not only on the level of the sentence but in the construction of an entire story. Particularly in stories that persist over time, the narratives that survive are those that have been shaped and reconditioned to shed the best possible light on their tellers. Research suggests that this is not an isolated phenomenon (e.g., Kinsella, 1989; Schudson, 1990; Vincent, Crow, & Davis, 1989). By looking at retellings of different kinds of news stories in the ways suggested here, we may better understand, and possibly control, the full matrix of variables that work to legitimate cultural authority. D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ H E A L - L i n k
C o n s o r t i u m ]
A t :
1 8 : 2 1
1 2
A p r i l
2 0 1 1 374 ACHIEVING JOURNALISTIC AUTHORITY DECEMBER 1990 NOTES 1 These included The New York Times Index, The Washington Post Index, Current Guide to Periodical Literature, the Vanderbilt Television News Archive, CBS News Archives, and NBC News Archives. Also examined were the trade press and proceedings of various professional organizations. 2 As White argues, "once we note the presence of the theme of authority in the text, we also perceive the extent to which the truth claims of the narrative and indeed the very right to narrate hinges upon a certain relationship to authority per se" (1980, p. 18). 3 The main organization in question was the International Press Institute (International Press Institute rejects move to admit radio-TV newsmen, 1963, p. 52). 4 The only professional to capture Kennedy's death on film, an AP photographer, was hailed by the trade press as the "Lone pro on the scene where JFK was shot" (1963, p. 11). 5 Foremost here was a special session of the American Society for Newspaper Editors that brought together the heads of 17 top news organizations to discuss what the Columbia Journalism Review called "Judgment by television" (1964) (see also "News media act to study charges," 1964). 6 Personalizing the Kennedy assassination has become part of the more general lay experience of remembering its events. People of all ages regularly recollect the assassination by remembering where they were when he died. Such a phenomenon has been called a "flashbulb memory" (Neisser, 1982). This lay popularity enhances the strategy's relevance for journalists. REFERENCES A world listened and watched. (1963, December 2). Broadcasting, p. 40. Barkin, S., & Gurevitch, M. (1987). Out of work and on the air: Television news and unemployment. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 4, 1-20. Barthes, R. (1977). Introduction to the structural analysis of narrative. In Image, music, text (pp. 79-124). New York: Hill & Wang. Bennett, W. L., & Edelman, M. (1985). Toward a new political narrative. Journal of Communication, 35(4), 156-171. Bybee, C. (1990). Constructing women as authorities: Local journalism and the microphysics of power. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 7, 197-214. Carey, J. (1986). The dark continent of American journalism. In R. K. Manoff & M. Schudson (Eds.), Reading the news (pp. 146-195). New York: Pantheon Books. Darnton, R. (1975). Writing news and telling stories. Daedalus, 120(2), 175-194. Donner, F. (1979, December 22). "Conspiracies unlimited." The Nation, pp. 483-484. Eason, D. (1986). On journalistic authority: The Janet Cooke scandal. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 3, 429-447. Fishman, M. (1980). Manufacturing the news. Austin: University of Texas Press. Four days in November. (1988). CBS News Division, [Television retrospective]. November 17. Freidson, E. (1986). Professional powers. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gates, G. P. (1978). Air time. New York: Harper & Row. Gerbner, G. (1973). Cultural indicators: The third voice. In G. Gerbner, L. Gross, & W. Melody (Eds.), Communications technology and social policy: Understanding the new "cultural revolution" (pp. 555-573). New York: Wiley. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ H E A L - L i n k
C o n s o r t i u m ]
A t :
1 8 : 2 1
1 2
A p r i l
2 0 1 1 375 CSMC ZELIZER Glasgow University Media Group (1976). Bad news. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Glasgow University Media Group (1980). More bad news. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Greenberg, B., & Parker, E. (Eds.). (1965). The Kennedy assassination and the American public. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Greenfield, M. (1988, November 28). The way things really were. Newsweek, p. 98. Habermas, J. (1981). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 7. Boston: Beacon Press. Halberstam, D. (1979). The powers that be. New York: Knopf. International Press Institute rejects move to admit radio-TV newsmen. (1963, June 8). The New York Times, p. 52. Judgment by television. (1964). Columbia Journalism Review, pp. 45-48. Jamieson, K. H. (1988). Eloquence in an electronic age. New York: Oxford University Press. JFK. (1983). [Television retrospective]. ABC News Division, November 11. JFK assassination: As it happened. (1988). [Television retrospective]. NBC News Division, November 22. John F. Kennedy Remembered. (1988). [Television retrospective]. Channel 3 Eyewitness News Nightcast, Philadelphia, PA, November 22. Katz, E., & Dayan, D. (in press). Media events: On the experience of not being there. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kinsella, J. (1989). Covering the plague: AIDS and the American media. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Knight, G., & Dean, T. (1982). Myth and the structure of news. Journal of Communication, 32(2), 144-161. Logan, A. (1967). JFK: The stained glass image. American Heritage Magazine, Aug., 4-7. Lone pro on the scene where JFK was shot. (1963, December 7). Editor & Publisher, p. 11. Matusow, B. (1983). The evening stars. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Mayo, J. (1967). Bulletin from Dallas. New York: Exposition Press. News media act to study charges. (1964, October 9). The New York Times, p. 21. Neisser, U. (1982). Snapshots or benchmarks? In Memory observed (pp. 43-48). San Francisco: Freeman. Oswald shooting a first in television history. (1963, December 2). Broadcasting, p. 46. Payne, D. (1970). The press corps and the Kennedy assassination. Journalism Monographs No. 15. Pettit, T. (1963). Report on NBC Nightly News, November 24. Roberts, C. (1966, December 5). Eyewitness in Dallas. Newsweek, pp. 26-29. Roberts, C. (1967). The truth about the assassination. New York: Grosset & Dunlop. Salinger, P. (1983, November 28). John Kennedythen and now. MacLeans, pp. 18-30. Schudson, M. (1982). The politics of narrative form: The emergence of news conventions in print and television. Daedalus, 3(4), 97-112. Schudson, M. (1990). Ronald Reagan misremembered. In D. Middleton & D. Edwards, (Eds.), Collective remembering (pp. 108-119). London: Sage. Sidey, H. (1963). John F. Kennedy, President. New York: Atheneum. Smith, B. H. (1978). On the margins of discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. D o w n l o a d e d
B y :
[ H E A L - L i n k
C o n s o r t i u m ]
A t :
1 8 : 2 1
1 2
A p r i l
2 0 1 1 376 ACHIEVING JOURNALISTIC AUTHORITY DECEMBER 1990 Van der Karr, R. (1965). How Dallas TV stations covered Kennedy shooting. Journalism Quarterly, 42, 646-649. Vincent, R., Crow, B., & Davis, D. (1989). When technology fails: The drama of airline crashes in network television news. Journalism Monographs No. 117. Warren Commission. (1964). The President's Commission on the assassination of President Kennedy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. The week we lost JFK. (1989). [Television retrospective]. NBC News Division, March. Weisman, C. (1988, November 19). An oral history: Remembering JFK: Our first TV president. TV Guide, pp. 2-8. White, H. (1980). The value of narrativity in the representation of reality. In W. J. T. Mitchell (Ed.), On narrative (pp. 1-23). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wicker, T. (1964, January 11). A reporter must trust his instinct. Saturday Review, pp. 81-86. Wicker, T. (1968). JFK and LBJ. New York: Morrow. Woodward, B., & Bernstein, C. (1976). The final days. New York: Simon and Schuster. Zelizer, B. (1990). "Covering the body": The Kennedy assassination and the establishment of journalis- tic authority. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. D o w n l o a d e d