Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Omaha Steve

(99,067 posts)
Fri May 4, 2012, 07:40 AM May 2012

AP apologizes for firing reporter over WWII scoop

Source: AP-Excite

By DAVID B. CARUSO

NEW YORK (AP) - In World War II's final moments in Europe, Associated Press correspondent Edward Kennedy gave his news agency perhaps the biggest scoop in its history. He reported, a full day ahead of the competition, that the Germans had surrendered unconditionally at a former schoolhouse in Reims, France.

For this, he was publicly rebuked by the AP, and then quietly fired.

The problem: Kennedy had defied military censors to get the story out. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Harry Truman had agreed to suppress news of the capitulation for a day, in order to allow Stalin to stage a second surrender ceremony in Berlin. Kennedy was also accused of breaking a pledge that he and 16 other journalists had made to keep the surrender a secret for a time, as a condition of being allowed to witness it firsthand.

Sixty-seven years later, the AP's top executive is apologizing for the way the company treated Kennedy.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20120504/D9UHP8600.html




In this March 1, 1944 file photo, Ed Kennedy, Chief of the Associated Press staff in North Africa, wears a metal helmet at the Anzio beachhead in Italy. Kennedy was dismissed by The AP after he became the first journalist to file a firsthand account of German officials surrendering unconditionally to Allied commanders at a former schoolhouse in Reims, France. Sixty-seven years later, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Tom Curley said that Kennedy was right to stand up to the censors, and should have been commended, not fired. (AP Photo, Pool)

33 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AP apologizes for firing reporter over WWII scoop (Original Post) Omaha Steve May 2012 OP
He promised to embargo a story exboyfil May 2012 #1
They should not have apologized at all naaman fletcher May 2012 #3
Except that's not how it went down: Alcibiades May 2012 #11
Sounds right to me, Alc. elleng May 2012 #25
Agree. He shouldn't have agreed to the embargo if he was going to break it Politicub May 2012 #31
67 years later, big whoop malthaussen May 2012 #2
Now now, he's only been dead 49 years... (nt) Posteritatis May 2012 #32
Censorship is censorship... trumad May 2012 #4
He Didn't Have To Agree To The Embargo Fastcars May 2012 #5
Good luck becoming a journalist. FailureToCommunicate May 2012 #8
It wasn't censorship Confusious May 2012 #9
If you read the link that is not what happened. former9thward May 2012 #18
The US Army did NOT break its word, happyslug May 2012 #23
+1 Thanks for elaborating in such detail independentpiney May 2012 #24
The reporter acted correctly. former9thward May 2012 #26
Sorry, just because someone else Confusious May 2012 #27
Once the military broke their word there was no point to the embargo. former9thward May 2012 #28
Your word is your word Confusious May 2012 #29
A contract is only good if both parties abide by it. former9thward May 2012 #30
It wasn't a contract Confusious May 2012 #33
Very True. Basil Clarke should have spilled the beans on Operation Torch LanternWaste May 2012 #12
Huge diff don't you think. trumad May 2012 #14
"and those who advocate it our idiots" WilliamPitt May 2012 #20
Douche trumad May 2012 #21
Win WilliamPitt May 2012 #22
So now we have the timeline gratuitous May 2012 #6
So AP, Churchill, Truman all colluded SemperEadem May 2012 #7
I think the Soviets were entitled to a surrender ceremony, that was the right thing to do independentpiney May 2012 #10
Cold War RitchieRich May 2012 #13
Agreed. 20 million Russians died...Russia was on OUR side FailureToCommunicate May 2012 #15
They were first in Berlin. They could have prepared such a place for a ceremony if they wanted one may3rd May 2012 #17
You're right,in fact we should have just marched straight on to Moscow independentpiney May 2012 #19
Is this considered LBN ? may3rd May 2012 #16

exboyfil

(17,857 posts)
1. He promised to embargo a story
Fri May 4, 2012, 07:53 AM
May 2012

Last edited Fri May 4, 2012, 09:07 AM - Edit history (1)

and he ran it anyway (getting a ready made scoop handed to him by the 46 journalists who kept their promise).

Can't say I agree. It was not like they were asking him to cover something up.

I think he should have been fired myself. Contrast his behavior to John Scali who assisted in backdoor negotiations during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

 

naaman fletcher

(7,362 posts)
3. They should not have apologized at all
Fri May 4, 2012, 07:59 AM
May 2012

If reporters can't be trusted, people won't give them information in the first place. I am glad he was fired.

Alcibiades

(5,061 posts)
11. Except that's not how it went down:
Fri May 4, 2012, 09:39 AM
May 2012

"Nevertheless, he initially stayed quiet. Then, at 2:03 p.m., the surrender was announced by German officials, via a radio broadcast from Flensburg, a city already in Allied hands. That meant, Kennedy knew, that the transmission had been authorized by the same military censors gagging the press.

Furious, Kennedy went to see the chief American censor and told him there was no way he could continue to hold the story. Word was out. The military had broken its side of the pact by allowing the Germans to announce the surrender. And there were no military secrets at stake.

The censor waved him off. Kennedy thought about it for 15 minutes, and then acted."

He probably thought that, if it was OK for the German people to know the war was over, why not Americans?

Politicub

(12,163 posts)
31. Agree. He shouldn't have agreed to the embargo if he was going to break it
Fri May 4, 2012, 10:51 PM
May 2012

It's poor form.

On edit: I should have read more closely. Once the embargo is broken, it's fair game to go forward with the story.

malthaussen

(17,066 posts)
2. 67 years later, big whoop
Fri May 4, 2012, 07:55 AM
May 2012

These apologies 'way after the fact amaze the hell out of me. Or soldiers who are "awarded" decorations fifty years after the deed, and when they've been dead for 20 of them. Of course his daughter says she's "overjoyed." It would take an exceptional human being to tell the AP to put their "apology" where the sun don't shine.

-- Mal

Fastcars

(204 posts)
5. He Didn't Have To Agree To The Embargo
Fri May 4, 2012, 08:53 AM
May 2012

He could have said no to the embargo, which was his right. And the PTB simply would have invited someone else to the ceremony. Happens all the time and those that understand the concept "our" hardly idiots.

FailureToCommunicate

(13,989 posts)
8. Good luck becoming a journalist.
Fri May 4, 2012, 09:01 AM
May 2012

They get asked by their sources, or editors about agreeing on release timing all the time. Refusal to go along -often for very good reasons- means limiting your access, and a very short career at that level...



Confusious

(8,317 posts)
9. It wasn't censorship
Fri May 4, 2012, 09:07 AM
May 2012

It was a promise made, and a promise not kept.

I don't trust people who break their word. If a good friend did something like this that was equally important to me, he wouldn't be a friend anymore.

former9thward

(31,802 posts)
18. If you read the link that is not what happened.
Fri May 4, 2012, 10:42 AM
May 2012

The military broke their promise so it was justified that the reporter break his.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
23. The US Army did NOT break its word,
Fri May 4, 2012, 12:41 PM
May 2012

The German Army DID annouce the surrender, as it was required to under the actual surrender terms. It was a message to its troops and German Citizens. The US Army knew that was going to happen. This reporter then said since the Germana HAD annocied, he should should have the right.

The US had agreed to the Soviet terms, not only for Stalin's parade, but it was to give the Russians one extra day to get their army from Europe to Manchuria so Stalin could attack Japan within 90 days of the Surrender of Germany AS STALIN HAD PROMISE FDR AT YALTA. Thus this report not only hurt the Russian's plans, but interferred with US AGREEMENTS WITH THE SOVIET UNION on how to end the War with Japan.

Please note, the US knew of the Soviet plans to invade, thus RUSHED the Atomic bombs to be dropped on Japan. The reason for this was simple, the US wanted to give the Japanese an excuse to surrender other then fear of the Russians.

The Atomic bombing was done on the 89th day AFTER May 8th, 1945, for the US knew the Soviets would have a difficult time moving their army into position to fulfill the 90 day obligations. Thus the US agreed to the extra day. On the 90th day the Soviet Army marched into Manchuria. On the following day you had the Second bomb dropping, A week later the Japanese got around to surrendering, more do to how far and fast the Red army was moving in Manchuria then the Atomic Bombings.

At the pace the Soviet Army was moving in August 1945, they would driven all Japanese forces out of Manchuria and the Soviet Army that attacked from Mongolia would have been deep in Korea. When this pace became clear, the Japanese surrendered. The Red Army would have taken all of Korea by the Middle of September and by the end of October would have been in a position to invade the Northernmost Japanese main island. The right wing running Japan in 1945 feared a Soviet Invasion more then an Atomic Bombing.

This pace was so fast that the US actually moved Marines into Seoul Korea BEFORE the official surrender on September 1, 1945, just so that the US would have a presence in Korea. Something the US could NOT have done had the Japanese NOT surrendered on August 15, 1945.

Yes, this news release, was disruptive of American War Plans. It directly affected the plans for Soviet Intervention against Japan. The week delay (and the issuing of orders of what to do in case of an Atomic bombing by the Japanese to its people) clearly shows that Japan was NOT that concerned about the Atomic Bombings, most of its cities had been destroyed already by conventional bombs (The Fire bombing of Tokyo of March 1945 probably killed more people then the First Atomic bombing and clearly killed more people then the Second Atomic bombing). The ruling elite of Japan was NOT that affected by the Atomic bombing, just like they were NOT affected by the Conventional bombing of their cities. What caused the ruling elite of Japan to panic and surrender was how far and fast the Soviet Army took Manchuria and nothing was going to stop the Red Army till it had all of Korea. From Korea it is almost a stone throw for a Soviet Invasion of Japan, and given that the only opposition political leader in Japan not tied in with the Right wing (or dead, Japan killed a lot of opposition leaders in the 1930s) was in Moscow did not give these right wing elites much faith in holding onto anything UNLESS the US was the sole occupying power of Japan.

Yes, it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that ended the war with Japan more then the Atomic Bombings. That invasion was dependent on the surrender date of the Germans. Thus making sure EVERYONE was using the same date (except the Germans, no one counted them) was important for US war aims as to Japan. This man should not only have been fired, but turned over to the Soviet Union for Punishment. His release could have cause massive disruptions in the Soviet Intervention with Japan, a long time goal of the US as of May 1945.





independentpiney

(1,510 posts)
24. +1 Thanks for elaborating in such detail
Fri May 4, 2012, 12:49 PM
May 2012

Most people are unaware of all the machinations that were going on towards the end of the war. I agree what this reporter did was outrageous and reprehensible, and merely being fired was light punishment.

Confusious

(8,317 posts)
27. Sorry, just because someone else
Fri May 4, 2012, 04:37 PM
May 2012

broke their word don't justify him breaking his.

Besides that, 16 other people there kept theirs.

Confusious

(8,317 posts)
29. Your word is your word
Fri May 4, 2012, 07:23 PM
May 2012

May seem like circular logic, but giving someone your word, in my opinion, is a bond, and breaking makes you a liar, and I cannot stand liars.

Whether or not it was out doesn't matter. Doesn't matter what anyone else does. It matters WHAT HE DID.

That you don't get that, making excuses for it, is disturbing, to say the least.

former9thward

(31,802 posts)
30. A contract is only good if both parties abide by it.
Fri May 4, 2012, 09:15 PM
May 2012

That you don't get that, making excuses for it, is disturbing, to say the least.

Confusious

(8,317 posts)
33. It wasn't a contract
Fri May 4, 2012, 11:19 PM
May 2012

And even if it was, he still should have abided by it. 16 other people knew how to keep an agreement.

It was in the surrender terms that Germany would do what it did.

Besides which, the the United States couldn't wait 24 hours to hear news it knew was coming?

Maybe you're another one of those people who think the "people" had a "right to know" about operation torch or D-Day, maybe a couple weeks in advance?

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
12. Very True. Basil Clarke should have spilled the beans on Operation Torch
Fri May 4, 2012, 09:40 AM
May 2012

Very True. Basil Clarke should have spilled the beans on Operation Torch 72 hours prior to the actual landing.

 

WilliamPitt

(58,179 posts)
20. "and those who advocate it our idiots"
Fri May 4, 2012, 12:13 PM
May 2012

Careful there, tru.

An embargoed story is one of the core elements of ethical journalism.

"are" idiots, btw.

Ah, irony.

SemperEadem

(8,053 posts)
7. So AP, Churchill, Truman all colluded
Fri May 4, 2012, 08:57 AM
May 2012

to manipulate events so that the one person they all grew to despise 10 years later could stage a photo op.

Gee, thanks.

independentpiney

(1,510 posts)
10. I think the Soviets were entitled to a surrender ceremony, that was the right thing to do
Fri May 4, 2012, 09:31 AM
May 2012

They bore the brunt of the war in Europe and deserved a national sense of victory and closure. There should have been no apology here imo

RitchieRich

(292 posts)
13. Cold War
Fri May 4, 2012, 09:56 AM
May 2012

I wonder if there would have been a different outcome (the severity of the Cold War) if the Soviets had been allowed to save face and not look bad. (beaten to the punch / egg on their face)

FailureToCommunicate

(13,989 posts)
15. Agreed. 20 million Russians died...Russia was on OUR side
Fri May 4, 2012, 10:24 AM
May 2012

Think Again
Words & Music : Dick Gaughan

Do you think that the Russians want war?
These are the parents of children who died in the last one
Do you think that it's possible, knowing their past
That they'd ever consider repeating the last
When 20 million were slaughtered by Nazi invasion?
They died fighting on our side, you know,
In a fight to defend humankind
Against Nazi terror and hatred

In the name of humanity, bitterly torn
In the name of our children as yet to be born
Before we do that which can never be undone I beg of you
Think, think again, and again and again and again and again

 

may3rd

(593 posts)
17. They were first in Berlin. They could have prepared such a place for a ceremony if they wanted one
Fri May 4, 2012, 10:33 AM
May 2012

They cut a deal with Hitler over the carving up of Poland and
they exacted the revenge they wanted
while
Soviet soldiers were unceremoniously sent to the gulags .

independentpiney

(1,510 posts)
19. You're right,in fact we should have just marched straight on to Moscow
Fri May 4, 2012, 11:12 AM
May 2012

Because the world is just that simplistic, a cut and dry struggle between good and evil. I don't need a reminder of the horrors of Stalin and Stalinism, thank you.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»AP apologizes for firing ...