Midnight Alarm

Most Washington correspondents were already in bed last week when their telephones jangled with the cryptic midnight summons: "This is the White House. Mr. Short will have an announcement at 1 o'clock." Getting into their clothes, the disheveled newsmen hustled to the darkened White House. They had not been called out at such an hour since Italy's surrender in 1943. Nervously, they swapped guesses on what news was big enough to justify it now. Said one: "I hope it is only MacArthur."

At 1, Presidential Press Secretary Joseph Short let them in to his office and broke the news that it was General MacArthur. The United Press won the race for the telephones, flashed the first bulletin ("Truman fires MacArthur") at 1:04 a.m. It beat International News Service by a minute and the Associated Press by two. At 1:06 a.m., NBC's Frank Bourgholtzer, by breaking a rule against broadcasting direct from the White House without approval, got the story on the air.

Quick Changes. The news caught some of Washington's top reporters overextended. The New York Times, replating its main city edition with the MacArthur story, jerked out James ("Scotty") Reston's scholarly explanation of why Truman would find it "extremely difficult" to replace MacArthur, and replaced it with a biography of General Ridgway. Some morning papers' "early" editions had already headlined a story by U.P.'s White House Correspondent Merriman Smith that President Truman had decided against any rebuke to MacArthur (headlined the New York Daily Mirror: WHITE HOUSE WON'T CENSURE MACARTHUR). A.P. had put out a similar story. The Portland Oregon Journal had to yank its editorial that "Truman couldn't fire MacArthur even if he wanted to . . ." Apparently, only NBC's Earl Godwin emerged as a prophet with honor. He had broadcast: "President Truman is not going to let MacArthur get away with it." On the eve of the announcement, Godwin proclaimed: "By tomorrow night there will be a blast."

Although the Washington press corps had no advance dope on the White House's well-kept secret, their editors nevertheless made good use of the hour between the White House "alert" and the actual announcement. Thanks to the odd time, they had a big story that radio couldn't milk dry before their papers hit the streets. They went after it with oldtime frenzy. Slot men, guessing what the news would be, dug out morgue cuts of MacArthur, dummied up screamer heads on alternate possibilities (MACARTHUR FIRED; MACARTHUR REBUKED; MACARTHUR QUITS). Most morning newspapers stopped their presses, replated, caught most of their run with the big news--and street sales went zooming.

Even at dead of night, newsmen tackled their job of rounding up reactions and comment. The U.P.'s enterprising Senate reporter, Warren Duffee, began routing Congressmen out of bed. Congressman Carl Vinson answered his phone, barked: "No comment. It's 3 o'clock!" and hung up. Wisconsin's Senator Alexander Wiley had to have the announcement explained three times before he got it, then said sleepily: "This is a time when we must weigh our words." Only Wisconsin's Senator Joe McCarthy seemed to think in headlines, even though half asleep. He roared out: "This is perhaps the greatest victory the Communists could ever claim."

Red Faces. Not all editors had time to yank their wrong guesses. The New Orleans Times Picayune put out its early edition while still observing on the editorial page that "there is no indication that the President is considering the removal of MacArthur." The Hartford Courant kept its editorial which said that "Mr. Truman is afraid of MacArthur," while its banner headlines said the opposite. But it was a measure of the decline of the editorial writer's art that many editors found their editorials foggy or innocuous enough to fit the facts both before & after MacArthur was fired.

The Boston Globe, after a quick look at the lead of Stewart Alsop's column ("It is at least conceivable that . . . MacArthur will be recalled") thought it O.K. to run by changing the head from "Is MacArthur Right?" to "Was MacArthur Right?" It overlooked the second paragraph, which began, "Yet on balance it is much more likely that cautious counsels will prevail . . ." and indicated that MacArthur would stay.

The prize blooper was made by the Los Angeles News. The morning after the news of MacArthur's removal, the News published an editorial, saying: "MacArthur, under orders, might be sounding off for the purpose of impressing Red China . . ."

Many a paper tried ingenious ways to make stories seem exclusive. The Newark Evening News front-paged Reporter John O. Davies Jr.'s recital of "an interview two years ago" in which MacArthur "partially explained [to me] some of the reasons behind his sudden ouster at Washington early this morning." Manhattan's Daily News marveled at the "almost uncanny accuracy" with which the News's Astrologist Marion Drew, as long ago as December, had prophesied that "MacArthur would encounter strong criticism in March and April." But after all the dailies had had first crack at the story, the weekly Seaford (Del.) Leader-News topped them all with the message:

WE HAVE LOST

GEN. MACARTHUR

BUT THANK GOD

WE'VE STILL GOT

GEN. VAUGHAN

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.