I've been following the debate over Ken Burns' "Mark Twain" with some
interest, especially because the Gilded Age/Progressive Era history
listserv was reacting to a PBS take on Woodrow Wilson just days before the
Burns' program hit the airwaves. Word there was that the scholars felt
really truncated and even misrepresented. The substantive things they said
were cut and they were left on screen with mere trivialities.

The response of that discipline, below, is interesting. I don't know how
widely the History News Service is disseminated or with what frequency
their items are picked up, but from the literary studies side of the
house, even having such a mouthpiece as a news service is enviable. The
attached message is a little long, and may not be of much interest to
Twainiacs, but--after much debate with myself--I decided to post it as an
analog to the discussion we have been having. There's always the delete
key if this is less than compelling. And I'd add that previous postings
from HNS have come with a footer that forwarding or other redistribution
is permitted, so long as HNS is credited as the source. I assume that
applies to this posting also. - Peg Wherry, Weber State University, Ogden,
UT


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:41:45 -0600
From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: NHS: Television Biography: History Lite

From: "Nancy Unger" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 3:22 PM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: AMERICAN EXPERIENCE on Wilson

________________________________________

       History  News  Service
________________________________________

January 17, 2002

Television Biography: History Lite

By Nancy C. Unger
History News Service

        Recently, PBS premiered a documentary biography about Woodrow
Wilson that, for all its many positive qualities, was ultimately a
disappointment. Like the vast majority of programs in the "American
Experience" series, it was beautifully produced. Vivid photographs and
footage were combined with informative and entertaining commentary by
leading scholars. Unfortunately, the final product often gave us History
Lite -- history reduced to the personal.
        "Biographies," said Mark Twain, himself a subject of a PBS
documentary, "are but the clothes and buttons of the man -- the biography
of the man himself cannot be written." Maybe so. But the Wilson film's
simplification of issues and ideas made even the clothes and buttons almost
unrecognizable.
        Reducing history to personality distorts events and their
significance. The presidential election of 1912, for example, was not, as
"American Experience" would have it, a personality contest between former
president Theodore Roosevelt, baby-kisser and back slapper, and New Jersey
Governor Woodrow Wilson, cool intellectual. It was instead a vital
referendum on the ideas of profoundly thoughtful and intelligent men that
would determine the course of the nation.
        To present Wilson as little more than his prevailing character
traits (scholarly, cerebral, yet passionate) is akin to presenting Abraham
Lincoln as earthy, moody and brilliant, with the Civil War as a colorful
background. It's like focusing on Osama bin Laden as a religious fanatic
and barely mentioning global politics or the World Trade Center.
        The Wilson who lived vitally within his times was a man worth
learning about. But we didn't get to see enough of that Wilson, one of the
most influential figures in twentieth-century history, in the PBS biography.
        For example, contrary to "American Experience," Wilson did not
almost single-handedly invent progressivism. Instead, that complex
succession of reform efforts began at the turn of the twentieth century as
a response to the evils of the newly  industrialized and urbanized America.
        A crowd of reformers had long sought to eliminate problems crying
out for solutions, such as overcrowded tenements, impure food and drugs,
unsafe working conditions and corrupt political machines in the nation's
teeming cities. Wilson himself graciously acknowledged that many of his
progressive proposals were inspired by others.
        In fact, in a show of bipartisanship that was rare even  then,
Wilson, a Democrat, recognized publicly the dedication of  a Republican
reformer, Robert M. La Follette. The Wisconsin senator fought many years in
the progressive trenches for such things as more equitable taxation and
ballot reforms, including direct elections. Wilson regretted that he had
not converted to progressivism earlier, stating, "There was no credit to
come in when I came in. The whole nation had awakened."
        Yet on "American Experience," even Theodore Roosevelt, far earlier
on the reform scene than Wilson and arguably the single most influential
progressive leader, received little credit. He was described as a
middle-of-the-road reformer important principally for his hatred of Wilson.
        Like all serious efforts to transform society, Wilson's attempts to
eliminate special privilege, whether from the dining halls of Princeton or
the boardrooms of American business, did not emerge from a vacuum. They
represented a thoughtful evaluation of the ideas of many men and women. Yet
in the televised version of Wilson's life, the differences between the two
progressive candidates in the 1912 campaign were essentially reduced to
personality traits. Their divergent political and social visions were not
addressed.
        What were those differences? By 1912, Roosevelt was delineating his
New Nationalism. He called for aggressive government action, including tax,
labor, and campaign reform.  Wilson countered with the New Freedom,
asserting that the federal government's task was to "sweep away special
privileges and artificial barriers to the development of individual
energies, and to preserve and restore competition in business," nothing
more.
        Wilson considered direct federal involvement (for example, giving
special protection to workers or farmers) paternalistic and detrimental to
free enterprise and open competition. He staunchly opposed the kind of
interventionist government that Roosevelt was proposing. The differences
between Roosevelt and Wilson over the proper role of government were so
profound that they continue to resonate in today's partisan arguments.
        So why such one-dimensional coverage by "American Experience?" Too
many historians who have served as talking heads on documentaries lament
that their efforts to provide context and analysis end up on the cutting
room floor, leaving only a television writer's conception of a dramatic
narrative thread.
        Does choosing to detail the personal at the expense of the
political really matter?  Without question, and not just to historians. To
present historical figures as essentially the sum total of their
personality traits, yet responsible for entire movements or events is
contrary to reality. It creates false expectations concerning current and
future leaders.
        Just as in Wilson's day, major figures today, such as George W.
Bush, Rudy Giuliani, Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharref, are
complex figures responding not only to private, but to local, national  and
global influences.
        The "American Experience" series is immensely popular. Because
television can be a powerful tool in presenting the valuable lessons of the
past, and the present, to the public, it's all the more important that it
gets its history right.


        Nancy C. Unger is an assistant professor of history at Santa Clara
University in California. She is the author of "Fighting Bob La Follette:
The Righteous Reformer" (2000) and a writer for the History News Service.