Journalists and their reporting are shaped, perhaps even dictated, by their cultural context. In Cold War Correspondents, historian Dina Fainberg—a lecturer in modern history at City University of London and co-editor of Reconsidering Stagnation Ideology and Exchange in the Brezhnev Era—shows how this truism played out between 1945 and 1991 in the United States and the former Soviet Union, where definitions of truth and journalistic objectives differed markedly.
Fainberg argues that both American and Soviet foreign correspondents, who played a critical role in establishing the framework for the Cold War, engaged in reporting that reflected the ideological systems of each nation. She demonstrates that “two distinctive Soviet and American truth systems—ideological convictions, professional practices, and political cultures—permeated journalists’ reporting and gave meaning to their encounters with the adversary” (2). Their work therefore reflected the nationalistic aims of the US and Soviet Union, each emerging from a different expressed ethos and norms of professional journalism. As the Cold War became hot, words mattered, and foreign correspondents played an important role in creating adversarial images of the other for their domestic audiences. These images have had important consequences, both then and now, for international relations.
The book opens with a 1949 portrait of two foreign correspondents: Harrison Salisbury, who covered the Soviet Union for The New York Times, and Ivan Beglov, assigned to head the US Bureau of TASS (Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union). By telling their stories, Fainberg shows how what seemed to be incompatible systems and methods of reporting produced remarkably similar outcomes. This approach humanizes the actors involved in this global conflict and gives the reader a sense for the nuances behind the crafted portrayal of the imagined adversary.
But the book is not only about subtle and even unconscious ways that journalistic reporting reflects nationalistic values. It also demonstrates the concrete actions taken by each government and its agencies to advance its national image and agenda. For example, the 1949 Agitprop “Plan of Activities for Increasing Anti-American Propaganda” united and organized Soviet efforts to “unmask America” and show the superiority of the Soviet system and way of life (26). Bureaucratic imperatives and structures thus drove Cold War journalism, along with national identity, socialization, and culture.
Over the trajectory of the Cold War period, Fainberg takes the reader through several thematically organized periods. In Part I: Spiers versus Liars, 1945–1953, the author shows how Soviet and American journalists were scrutinized for their loyalty to their country and expected to advance their nation's image as superior to their rival. Again, she emphasizes that journalists adhered to the “us versus them” framework.
In Part II: Pens Instead of Projectiles, 1953–1965, Fainberg reviews the post-Stalin period and the emergence of new relations and styles of reporting after Nikita Khrushchev came to power in the Soviet Union. While rivalries persisted, a managed acceptance of each system emerged. Reporters continued to emphasize the superiority of their respective systems, but coverage expanded and reflected a broader array of interests and concerns than during the previous era. American and Soviet journalists engaged in human-interest story production and an effort to show what life was like for ordinary citizens in each country.
Part III: Your Fight is Our Fight, 1965–1985, shows how the period of détente collapsed and how human rights issues came to dominate reporting. Again, both Soviet and American correspondents advanced a view of their own country as superior to the other, arguing that the other system was flawed (with American reporting focused on the superior standard of living in the US).
Part IV: A Moment of Truth: 1985–1991, shows the role journalists played during the Gorbachev-Reagan era, deconstructing the previous narratives and contributing to the end of the Cold War. The book concludes with a commentary on recent relations and journalism during Vladimir Putin's presidency, work I hope the author will continue so we can better understand the current situation. This important book reveals insights about how journalistic imperatives emerge and influence international relations. It underscores how both Russians and Americans come to understand themselves, in part, based on their image of the other.
Scholars and students of history, sociology, politics and international relations should read this book. Highly accessible, it will engage and inform anyone interested in the history of US-Soviet relations and the Cold War.
