Sparks Commentary: A review of PBS’s “Citizen Hearst” (American Experience)

An anecdote about the movie “Citizen Kane” (made by Orson Welles in 1941)

In 1941, Orson Welles released a film called “Citizen Kane,” which has since become a classic. But at the time, William Randolph Hearst tried to suppress the film, by financially threatening those theatres that were showing it. Thus, the film “Citizen Kane” didn’t do that well at the time that it first came out. After watching it, I can see why William Randolph Hearst didn’t like the film. It gave a thinly-disguised (but nonetheless detectable) portrayal of a character loosely based on Hearst himself – a portrayal which was somewhat unflattering. There are significant differences between the movie life of Charles Foster Kane, and the real life of Hearst himself. Other parts of the movie are eerily similar to the real thing. But to go into either the similarities or the differences between the two (let alone both of these things) would be beyond the scope of this blog post. Here, I will instead review PBS’s four-hour biography of the real William Randolph Hearst. It is simply entitled “Citizen Hearst,” an obvious reference to the famous Orson Welles film.

Hearst’s early life, through his entry into the New York newspaper market

Hearst was born into a family that was already rich. His father had become a millionaire as a mining engineer, who would eventually serve as a United States Senator during his son’s lifetime. William Randolph Hearst spent some time in college, where he was head of the school newspaper. However, he was later expelled from the school. Nonetheless, he had enjoyed his first taste of success as a journalist, and found the newspaper business to be far more fun than his father’s mining business. He was born for the news media profession, and was given control of a major newspaper by his father. The father had won the “San Francisco Examiner” in a game of chance, in which the loser was the previous owner of the paper. The paper wasn’t expected to be particularly profitable, but the young Hearst was able to turn it into a success. The father soon died, so the control of the family finances passed to Hearst’s mother instead. With his mother’s backing, the young Hearst was thus able to acquire the “New York Morning Journal,” later known simply as the “Journal.” Hearst knew that if he were to experience major success in the newspaper business, he had to gain a foothold in the New York market. Thus, he poached the successful staff of rival newspapers by offering them higher salaries to work for his own paper instead. Thus, almost instantly, he had some of the best talent in the business at his disposal, and proceeded to use it to sell his newspapers in the competitive New York market.

A 1906 pro-Hearst political cartoon run in Hearst's newspapers

Newspaper career, and competition with the already-established Joseph Pulitzer

Instantly, Hearst found himself in competition with Joseph Pulitzer’s “New York World.” Pulitzer was of the older generation, and may have been slower to adapt to the times. Pulitzer was no stranger to sensationalist coverage, but found himself outdone in this area by the young upstart. When Pulitzer died, Hearst published a rare tribute to his former rival, something that he had never done during his rival’s lifetime. When newsreel technology came along, many believed that newspapers would soon become obsolete, and predicted that they would disappear altogether. But Hearst said that no such demise was actually imminent, because newspapers would still be around – they would simply have a lower share of the market than before. He was right, and newspapers are still around at the time that I write this. However, Hearst was smart enough to diversify his assets in this area. That is, he invested in newsreels as well as newspapers, in a bid to gain a larger share of the overall news market. His strategy worked, and Hearst proved that he had a better knowledge of the market than some of the naysayers. This sort of thing might seem obvious in retrospect, but relatively few people can see these things coming in advance. The ones who do so can realize a handsome profit from so doing. Clearly, Hearst was one of these people, and he proved as proficient at newsreel journalism as he was at the old newspaper kind.

Millicent Willson, Hearst’s only wife

Hearst’s personal life, with his wife Millicent and his later mistress Marion Davies

But a lot of this film is spent on Hearst’s personal life. Hearst married Millicent Willson, and had five sons by her. But later on, he was willing to trade her in for a somewhat younger model – an actress named Marion Davies. However, he never divorced from Millicent, and actually remained married to her until his own death in 1951. His solution was instead to cohabit with his new mistress, and live far away from the wife that had borne his sons. You might wonder why they never divorced. The reason was simple: Millicent was a Catholic, and was thus opposed to divorce. At one point, she offered him a divorce anyway, but her financial terms were too demanding to suit her husband’s ambitions. He would have had to sacrifice significant portions of his media empire (including certain magazines) to get the divorce, and was unwilling to do so. But Hearst spent a lot of money on his mistress, and helped her to succeed in her budding film career. But when the film industry went from silent movies to talking pictures, the young actress actually had a rough time making the transition. Hearst paid for her voice lessons, which seem to have been far more voluntary than their counterparts in the movie “Citizen Kane.” The real mistress was able to make the transition, and extended her successful film career into the era of “talkies” – an old term for pictures with sound and talking (that is, non-silent pictures).

Marion Davies, Hearst’s mistress

Comments on the offices that Hearst held, and the political stances of his newspapers

Hearst served for four years as a United States Congressman from New York, but tried to get many other offices as well. These included Governor of New York, Mayor of New York City, and President of the United States. He never got these exalted offices, since they were harder to get than offices in Congress. But his ambition remained strong. He was one of the voices urging America to fight the Spanish Empire, although he was probably exaggerating when he claimed to have “started” the Spanish-American War of 1898. Hearst was a classic “limousine liberal” – willing to campaign for the “common man,” but nonetheless willing to crush workers’ strikes against his own newspaper – or, at least, try to do so. Apparently, the calls for “better working conditions” applied only to other industries than his own. He became even more conservative in his later years, and even reactionary. As a reactionary, he supported Nazi Germany – even allowing Nazi leaders to publish columns in his newspapers. He was a militant nationalist who hated communists, particularly after the Russian Revolution. At one point, Hearst was a supporter of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but then broke with FDR later on. These things began to have an effect on his circulation. After a while, it was impossible to ignore the effects on his business, and Hearst was forced to sell many of his prize possessions (including his famous artwork collection). But when World War Two began, he recovered somewhat by publishing racist articles about the Japanese (and Japanese Americans), which were well-received by the American public of the time. This wasn’t the first time that he had published some racist things against Asian Americans, and it would not be the last. Hearst was somewhat quieter at this time about Hitler’s Nazis, whom he had earlier supported.

William Randolph Hearst

Conclusion: A great (chronological) biography, which helps to get to the soul of the man

This film is certainly a more chronological approach to Hearst’s life than Orson Welles’ “Citizen Kane.” The Orson Welles film is known for switching back and forth between different stages of its protagonist’s life, while this documentary film observes a good chronology. This film is also more in-depth than its Orson Welles counterpart, and somewhat less given to “artistic license” (although I admire the artfulness of “Citizen Kane”). I found “Citizen Hearst” to be far more interesting than PBS’s biography of Joseph Pulitzer, in part because “Citizen Hearst” is more in-depth. “Joseph Pulitzer: Voice of the People” was only two hours long, while “Citizen Hearst” is a full four hours long. Thus, this PBS biography is one of their best, particularly for private-sector figures like William Randolph Hearst. They have a more mixed portrayal of Hearst than that found in “Citizen Kane,” since the PBS film is slightly more sympathetic than that famous portrayal. But they cover both the good and the bad of the man – and, to me, they cover them in the right proportions. It is a great biography of a successful American businessman, who helped to revolutionize the American news media. And it’s a great coverage of both his personal and professional lives, which helps to get to the soul of the man.