Arthur in Maine contributes the Comment of the Day, expanding on the predictable comparison between Orson Welles’ Halloween radio broadcast of his adaptation of “War of the Worlds,” which many gullible listeners believed was a real invasion, with the misinformation broadcast by Animal Planet in its recent fake documentary claiming that mermaids may exist. I have a few comments afterwards; meanwhile, here is Arthur’s interesting perspective on the post, “Ethics Dunce: Animal Planet”:

“I’ll give Welles a pass here. Because of my work, I am a student of the media (contrary to the assumptions made by a kindhearted poster on another thread).

“Welles was not irresponsible. He was groundbreaking in his art, using a new form of media in a way it had never been used before. The program was announced as a radio play; it was interrupted by commercial breaks, it ended in an hour, nothing about the invasion was carried on other networks, and even more to the point: the panic ascribed to “The War of the Worlds” broadcast never happened.

“A few people freaked out? Certainly. A few people freak out if they see a black cat cross their path. Read up on media history, and you’ll learn that the reporting of same was the result of the newspapers trying to slap down that upstart new medium called radio – they were afraid it would impact their control of the news.

“Jack is the only guy here who has access to my identity beyond my handle (I prefer to remain anonymous on online forums, for professional reasons), but methinks he can assure any doubters as to my bona fides if asked.

“Returning to topic: yeah, Discovery, History and so forth have had mission creep. So has the Weather Channel. Way I see it, this is probably healthy long term, not so much short term. America needs to wean itself from blind faith in its media – the idea of objective media is an American construct and a recent one at that. In fact, the ideal of “objective” media was advanced by publishers (Pulitzer) and broadcast executives (Paley) who were afraid that they were pissing off… advertisers.

“The idea of objective media, btw, is one that most of the rest of the world doesn’t embrace. Media in free market economies is highly competitive. We see it here only in cable news.”

“Healthy doses of skepticism in all walks of life are good advice.”

Me again. I agree that Welles should probably get a pass, although Arthur does, I think, understate the number of people who fell for Welles’ stunt. Because of some quirks in scheduling (radio shows often began and ended at the 15 minute marks), it is well documented that many listeners tuned in after ventriloquist Edgar Bergen and dummy Charlie McCarthy had finished their show, causing the opening credits for “The War of the Worlds” to be missed. While Arthur is accurate regarding the commercial breaks and the length of the show, some of those who tuned in to learn that leathery Martians were frying reporters didn’t hang around to hear more of the broadcast. The tales of mass panic were and are wildly exaggerated, but Orson was one those encouraging and spreading the hyperbole.

I will say that while arguably accurate in this instance, the sentence “Welles was not irresponsible” was probably never said nor thought by any of his associates, friends, or collaborators. My uncle, actor George Coulouris, was a member of Welles’ Mercury Theater, and confirmed to me that a more wildly irresponsible artist never lived. Welles would call rehearsals and make his company wait for hours, then stagger in drunk and direct the cast while he sat chowing down a glutton’s feast. He was reckless with the safety of his actors and crew, and over-committed himself so absurdly that he never gave full attention to any project, how matter how important it was. Welles was brilliant, yes. Responsible, no.

I tend to agree with Arthur that journalistic integrity and objectivity is a myth, and probably unachievable. I continue to be offended by journalists claiming to be objective. I’m not sure supposed science and history channels presenting outright fiction in the guise of fact addresses the problem. This isn’t lack of objectivity, but rather recklessness and dishonesty.