Book Nook Cafe discussion

What's this? Book Nook Cafe's Group Read ! All are welcome to join in.

Book: The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism

Author Doris Kearns Goodwin
Author Bio
• Birth—January 4, 1943
• Where—Brooklyn, New York, USA
• Education—B.A., Colby College; Ph.D., Harvard University
• Awards—Pulitzer Prize, 1995 for No Ordinary Time
• Currently—lives in Concord, Massachusetts

Doris Kearns Goodwin is an award-winning American author, historian, and political commentator. She won the Pulitzer Prize for History in 1995. She is the author of biographies of U.S. Presidents, including Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln; Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream; The Fitzgeralds and the Kennedys: An American Saga; and her Pulitzer Prize winning book No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The American Homefront During World War II.

When We start reading the book on October 1, 2015. Read at your own pace. Please put chapter # at the top of your posts !

Where The entire discussion will take place in this thread

Spoiler etiquette The book consists of 29 chapters. Please put the chapter # at the top of your post as people will be reading and discussing at their own pace.

Please put the words SPOILER at the top of you post if needed or use the GR HTML to hide spoilers in your post.

book details
The paperback edition is 750 pages
The book is also available for e-Readers and audio-book format.
Doris Kearns Goodwin, 2013
Simon & Schuster

synopsis
An Amazon Best Book of the Month, November 2013: In an era when cooperation between the national media and the US government seems laughable, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Doris Kearns Goodwin’s timely 100-year look backward explores the origins of the type of muckraking journalism that helped make America a better country. Focusing on the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and his successor, William Howard Taft--one-time colleagues and friends who later became sworn foes--Goodwin chronicles the birth of an activist press, which occurred when five of the nation’s best-ever journalists converged at McClure’s magazine and helped usher in the Progressive era. At times slow and overly meticulous, with a lot of backstory and historical minutiae, this is nonetheless a lush, lively, and surprisingly urgent story--a series of entwined stories, actually, with headstrong and irascible characters who had me pining for journalism’s earlier days. It’s a big book that cries out for a weekend in a cabin, a book to get fully lost in, to hole up with and ignore the modern world, to experience the days when newsmen and women were our heroes. --Neal Thompson

Discussion Questions


1. Talk about the differences in the economic arena between the early 20th century, the historical period of this book, and the early 21st century. How similar are the issues of economic disparity?

2. Define populism...during Rooevelt and Taft's era and during our own? The same...different? What has spurred the growth of the movement then and now?

3. What role did the press play in the Roosevelt and Taft administrations? What role do the media play today? What exactly is muckraking? Can today's journalists be considered modern muckrakers? Do we have anything comparable to McClure's magazine today?

4. This is the first book in Goodwin's oeuvre that focuses prominently on women: especially Ida Tarbell and the wives of the two presidents. Talk about the ways in which those women made a difference...and talk about the times in which they operated. How amenable was society of powerful women?

5. Of the two primary figures, Roosevelt and Taft, which do you feel made the greatest difference? Which one most impressed you—and why? How did the two men differ in personality, as well as in their political view, tactics, and effectiveness?

6. How would you explain the deterioration of the friendship between two presidents?

7- How would you rate this book?

8- How has your view of Theodore Roosevelt changed since reading this book? Could a modern
president do what he did while in office?

9- Goodwin could not have written such an intimate portrait of the two men without their letters
to each other and to their wives. How will history be recorded for historians in the next 100
years?

10- Steven Spielberg and Dreamworks, have acquired the rights to make a film based on The Bully Pulpit. Whom would you cast for the parts?

11- What scenes from Bully Pulpit stick out in your mind as particularly cinematic?

12--The text of this book is 750 pages. Did the detail incorporated into this volume advance or
detract from the story? If you could edit, what would you cut? Is there an untold story here, something you would have liked more of?

* questions from Lit Lovers and rusa.ala.org

More discussion questions from the publisher

Topics & Questions for Discussion

1. In describing Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, Goodwin writes, “the lively natures displayed by young Taft and Roosevelt remained with them throughout their lives. The aftermath of their anger, however, was handled very differently.” (p. 69) How does each man handle his anger? In what ways does this manifest in their respective political careers? Did you learn anything about the upbringing of either Roosevelt or Taft that surprised you? If so, what?

2. Why do you think Goodwin choose to title her book The Bully Pulpit? What role does the press play in the Roosevelt and Taft presidential administrations? Does the press play a similar role in politics today? Explain your answer.

3. Ida Tarbell “was certain that having a husband and children would thwart her freedom and curtail her nascent ambition” (p. 172) and decides that she will never marry. Nellie Taft, too, is initially opposed to marriage. Why do both women feel that marriage is a hindrance? What opportunities are available to women at the time? Why does Nellie finally agree to marry Taft?

4. Of Nellie Taft and Edith Roosevelt, Goodwin writes “In many ways, the two women complemented and balanced their respective partners.” (p. 132). Describe Roosevelt’s relationship with Edith and Taft’s with Nellie in light of Goodwin’s assertion. Was there anything about the relationships that surprised you? If so, what?

5. Douglas Brinkley said “If Roosevelt had done nothing else as president, his advocacy on behalf of preserving the [Grand] canyon might well have put him in the top ranks of American presidents.” (p. 351) Do you agree? What do you think Roosevelt’s crowning achievement was during his presidency? What was Taft’s and why?

6. Ray Stannard Baker had a close relationship with Roosevelt. How were the two men able to help each other? Baker considered Roosevelt’s ability to “endure criticism ‘one of his finest characteristics.’” (p. 650) Do you agree with Baker’s assessment of Roosevelt? Why or why not? What characteristics do you think are necessary in a president?

7. Roosevelt famously quoted the West African proverb “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” (p. 256) Give examples of how he enacts this philosophy in his presidency. How does Taft’s approach compare to Roosevelt’s? Do you think one approach is more effective? If so, why?

8. The New Yorker praised The Bully Pulpit saying “[Goodwin] is too disciplined to make explicit comparisons to the present in the book, but it’s infused with a sense that the story she tells may hold lessons for us.” Did you see any parallels between the political climate during the Progressive era that Kearns details and today? What are they? Discuss them with your book club.

9. Baker’s articles in McClure’s magazine about Coxey’s Army brought hundreds of additional recruits and revealed to him “the incredible ‘power of the press.’” (p. 185) How do the staff members of McClure’s use their positions to affect political and social change? Describe the ways that the press is able to influence both the Roosevelt and Taft administrations. What role does the press play in today’s political landscape?

10. During Roosevelt’s and Taft’s time in office a sitting president couldn’t “go on the stump and can’t indulge in personalities.” (p. 410). How else have presidential campaigns changed?

11. Do you consider The Bully Pulpit to be entertaining as well as educational? Would you recommend it to a friend?

A big thank you to all who voted and are planning on participating in this group read. We haven't had a group read in a number of months so I am looking forward to sharing this book with you all !

See ya October 1, 2015 to begin reading and discussing the book. :)

Theodore Roosevelt
26th President of the United States

October 27, 1858 – January 6, 1919)

In office-
September 14, 1901 – March 4, 1909
Vice President None (1901–1905)
Charles W. Fairbanks
(1905–1909)
Preceded by William McKinley
Succeeded by William Howard Taft

Personal details

Born: Theodore Roosevelt
October 27, 1858
New York City

Died: January 6, 1919 (aged 60)
Oyster Bay, New York, US

Resting place: Youngs Memorial Cemetery
Oyster Bay, New York, US

Political party
Republican (1880–1909)
Progressive "Bull Moose" (1912)

Spouse(s)
Alice Lee
(m. 1880; her death 1884)
Edith Carow
(m. 1886; his death 1919)

Children:
Alice Lee, Theodore III, Kermit, Ethel Carow, Archibald Bulloch ("Archie"), and Quentin

Parents:
Theodore Roosevelt Sr.
Martha Bulloch Roosevelt

Alma mater Harvard University (A.B.)
Columbia Law School (J.D.)

Religion Dutch Reformed Church

Awards
Nobel Peace Prize (1906)
Medal of Honor ribbon. Medal of Honor
(Posthumously; 2001)

Military service
Service/branch New York National Guard
United States Army
Years of service 1882–1886, 1898
Rank US-O6 insignia.svg Colonel
Commands 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry

Battles/wars Spanish–American War
• Battle of Las Guasimas
• Battle of San Juan Hill

William Howard Taft
27th President of the United States

September 15, 1857 – March 8, 1930

In office
March 4, 1909 – March 4, 1913
Vice President James S. Sherman (1909–1912)
None (1912–1913)
Preceded by Theodore Roosevelt
Succeeded by Woodrow Wilson

Personal details

Born: September 15, 1857
Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.

Died: March 8, 1930 (aged 72)
Washington, D.C., U.S.

Resting place: Arlington National Cemetery

Political party
Republican

Spouse(s)
Helen Herron (m. 1886; his death 1930)

Children
Robert, Helen, and Charles

Alma mater Yale University
Cincinnati Law School

Religion Unitarian

The Library of Congress : Doris Kearns Goodwin on Roosevelt & Taft

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0SG4...

Thanks, Carol !

Hi!! I went to the library this afternoon, only one LARGE PRINT book available, 1,273 pages, and I have to return it in 3 weeks, so I'm starting now!!

What are the three books on Theodore Roosevelt?

Was it . . .
Theodore Rexby Edmund Morris
Colonel Roosevelt
AND ??

The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt

Thanks!!
I really like Teddy Roosevelt. I would like to read more books on him. I know very little on Taft.

I believe the order to read them is:


The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Rex
Colonel Roosevelt

I own but have not yet read
Mornings on Horseback


I've read another book by this author and enjoyed it. I have this TR book on my TBR list.
The River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt's Darkest Journey

So far, the book I enjoyed the most on TR is
Lion in the White House: A Life of Theodore Roosevelt---Aida D. Donald

My version is Mornings on Horseback by David McCullough -
The top of my hard cover book has a green band with white type: 'S & S CLASSIC EDITION'- Vol. 10
460 pp. , copyright 1981, 2001. I wonder if the text is different. I purchased it at the "Winter: Book Sales" in our city basement library. I can't beat it, everything there is mint condition. These wonderful women go through everything, find what you are looking for, and the prices go from $2 to $8. The library volunteers are amazing.

Carol wrote: "My version is Mornings on Horseback by David McCullough -
The top of my book has a green band with white type: 'S & S CLASSIC ..."

My paper back copy is 370 pages including afterword.
If I include the notes and index it is 445

My cover is

The book I have is Simon & Schuster

Carol wrote: "Hi!! I went to the library this afternoon, only one LARGE PRINT book available, 1,273 pages, and I have to return it in 3 weeks, so I'm starting now!!."

No problem, Carol. Feel free to post your comments as you read. Just put the chapter # at the top of your post.

I have a few more library books I need to finish up before I can begin.

I got 4 books today at B&N --


Theodore Rex by Edmund Morris Miller 555 pages.

Colonel Roosevelt by Edmund Morris Miller 370 pages -on sale for $5.98.

The River of Doubt: Theodore Roosevelt's Darkest Journey by Candice Millard 353 pages.

The Johnstown Flood by David McCullough 268 pages.

Wow ! That's an ambitious book haul ! You will be an expert on TR that for sure !

My other Teddy books --



Mornings on Horseback
A Bully Father: Theodore's Letters to His Children
When Trumpets Call: Theodore Roosevelt After the White House

Given that this book discusses the role of the press in the presidential administrations of TR and Taft, I thought this was a timely and interesting article from AlJazerra America:

"How journalism helps lunacy become reality"

September 27, 2015
by Larry Beinhart

After the second prime-time Republican presidential debate on Sept. 16, The New York Times published an astonishing editorial. It said the candidates must be “no longer living in a fact-based world” and described what they said as “a collection of assertions so untrue, so bizarre that they form a vision as surreal as the Ronald Reagan jet looming behind the candidates’ lecterns.”

It was about time that someone as authoritative as The New York Times editorial board said it as bluntly as that.

One of the things that made the editorial so striking is that the news coverage of the same events, in the same paper as well as in the rest of the media, treated what the candidates said as almost entirely unremarkable.

That prompts interesting questions. Why was this only an editorial? Why wasn’t it in the news? Shouldn’t it be newsworthy that the leading contenders for the Republican nomination are “no longer living in a fact-based world” and that what they say is “untrue … bizarre … surreal”?

A political problem

It may have been hearing it all in a chorus that so excited the Times editorial board. But no candidates on that stage said anything much different from what they and their colleagues in the Senate, the House and state governments say every day.

Normally the news takes what a person in authority says at face value. Then the media publish or broadcast it, usually without question or challenge. Quoted statements are certainly not described as lunatic assertions, however much they might be.

The news then becomes part of a political and social problem: By reiterating and repeating such assertions, they normalize the surreal. If it happens enough without challenge, lunacy becomes reality.

Consider the false stories about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction leaked by Vice President Dick Cheney’s associates to New York Times reporter Judith Miller. After she got the misinformation published, Cheney and his team quoted the Times to prove that the falsehoods must be true.

Or consider the example of tax-cut plans described as pro-growth. Anytime tax reform is described as pro-growth, it is proposing tax cuts for the rich. There are several more accurate tags that could be hung on them: greater inequality tax plan, “them that’s got shall get” tax reform and bubble and crash economics.

Is it hard to make the case for that second set of labels? Bill Clinton raised taxes, and it was pro-growth. George W. Bush cut taxes, income inequality increased, and there was a bubble and a crash. Barack Obama raised taxes, and there was growth. A quick bit of research going back to Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt will demonstrate pretty much the same thing.

Yet news reporters invariably avoid deconstructing the mantra that tax cuts for the rich are pro-growth and tax hikes will strangle the economy.

Chinese-menu journalism

Is there such a thing as a fact-based world? (The New York Times editorial presumes that there is.) Does objective reality exist?

And if there is objective reality — and a politician makes untrue, bizarre, surreal statements — can a journalist report facts that oppose and discredit those assertions?

Stated that way, it sounds as if the answer must be yes. But as American journalism has traditionally been taught and as it is typically practiced, the answer is no. The best that a journalist can do if she thinks that Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, is spouting nonsense, is find someone of authority who says so and then quote that person.

This is called “objective” journalism. It has its virtues. It can guard against media outlets putting their own twist on every story. Going to authorities and experts can protect a journalist from being blamed if the statement of contradiction is wrong or incomplete.

The pejorative name for this is Chinese menu journalism: The reporter orders two quotes, one from column A and one from column B, and there’s a complete news meal. Describing it that way reveals the inherent weakness of the method.

The Times editorial complained that the candidates in the debate didn’t talk about “child poverty, police and gun violence, racial segregation, educational gaps, competition in a global economy and crumbling infrastructure. On looming disasters (the changing climate)” — issues that the Times considers significant for our nation. But the people on that stage (let alone the debate moderators) don’t think those topics are important and, as it happens, all of them live in the same column. Call it column A.

The system breaks down when there is no one around from column B. Or, presuming there’s more than two ways to view things, from columns C, D and E.

What’s even more troubling is that the truth or verifiability of a statement doesn’t matter. What matters is the stature of the people being quoted and if they have a stake in making the case.

The classic disastrous example was Secretary of State Colin Powell’s 2003 speech at the United Nations claiming that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi minister of science denied it. But if Saddam was Hitler, then his minister was Goebbels. He had negative stature and couldn’t be quoted against the noble American military hero.

Hans Blix, the U.N. weapons inspector on the ground, essentially denied the claim. But his stake was in appearing thoughtful, scientific and neutral. So he insisted on saying none had been found so far and he could not swear none would ever be found.

So off America went to war on what would have been, in a fact-based world, a set of assertions that could have been easily disproved. But only if journalists were committed to asserting reality. For its own sake.

Reporting objective reality

Is it possible for journalists to move from objective journalism, as practiced, to the more difficult task of reporting objective reality?

It is being done, but only in certain narrow circumstances.

Political advertisements are now routinely subjected to independent fact-checking, then rated for their degrees of truth and falsehood. Sometimes campaign statements are also treated that way.

Yet claims made for policies once politicians are in office, even if they are identical to claims labeled false in political commercials, are not subject to such examinations. They should be.

We know that news organizations don’t abide by the rules of objective journalism when they don’t want to. The debates thus far are perfect case in point.

In the first prime-time debate, run by Fox News, the questions the moderators asked had nothing to do with running the country. The goal of the questions was to test the degree to which the candidates were Fox News Republicans. Since all but one of them would not get to run for president, the questions served even better as auditions for becoming Fox News commentators.
CNN, desperate for ratings, announced and advertised that its goal was to try to provoke confrontations. The network showed no interest in discovering who might best run the country or in fact-checking anything said in those confrontations.

Arguments from authority

Two things have damaged objective journalism.

First, the method of only quoting authoritative sources has inherent weaknesses. People have figured out how to game the system. Now there’s a whole class of people dedicated to doing so and to selling their services to stakeholders with enough money to employ them. They spin, package, focus-group phrases such as “pro-growth,” churn out position papers, muddy the waters and try to destroy ideas that oppose the interests of their clients.

Readers and viewers may not be able to deconstruct and decipher all the interests that have shaped a given news story, but they can certainly feel that the material has been sliced, diced and manufactured. So there’s great distrust, and rightly so, of the mainstream media, from both ends of the political spectrum.

Second, objective journalism is no longer the right method for the times. It grew up in an age when information was difficult to obtain. Simply letting us know who won the battle, what destruction a storm caused and what a presidential candidate said in a distant city was of great service.

Now the problem is reversed. There’s too much information coming to us way too quickly. We need someone to sort it out. What’s important, trivial, true, false, relevant to our lives.

The proof that something is wrong with the method is the market. Almost all practitioners of straight-up objective journalism are either struggling or dead.

In land that once had many great newspapers, there’s only one, The New York Times — maybe a second, The Washington Post — left.

All the network news organizations have cut back.

Lessons from two successes

There are, however, two great success stories in the news business: Fox News and “The Daily Show.”

On a fundamental level, they offer the same services. They sort through the mountains of chatter and tell us what is important. They also perform the very gratifying function of telling us that everyone else is spouting bullshit. Of this we are certain and happy to cheer.

Admittedly, they do this in two different ways. Fox News does it by adhering to a political agenda in which myth always trumps reality. It is a major contributor to the conditions that prevailed on the stage of the Republican debates that so appalled the Times editorial board. Jon Stewart and “The Daily Show” did it by being the only news outlet with a historical memory — pulling the tape on what people said last year and the year before — and by holding claims up not to counterclaims but to the standard of objective reality.

The problem with objective journalism is illustrated perfectly by what was said in the Times editorial and what was not said in the news pages. By the standards of objective journalism, what the editorial said is opinion. If it’s opinion, then there’s your and mine and no way to choose one over the other.

If serious journalism is going to survive and even to thrive, the challenge is to elevate the whole standard of objective journalism to one that is based on the idea that there is objective reality and that it is the job of the journalist to go beyond getting usable quotes and to sort that out for us. It may even be a great economic opportunity. Even without the jokes.


http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions...

Excellent article, Amy.

What I find the most annoying and frightening is when the press reports stories as only opinions. Thereby inferring that there are no objective facts. So they present two points of view and treat each as a possibility of truth. The only difference is ones opinion. Facts and Truth become amorphous.

For example, let's say person A claims that the sun revolves around the earth. We know scientifically in 2015 that this is factually incorrect. However, instead of just calling person A out on their BS, they instead have person B present his claim that the earth revolves around the sun. The reporter then treats both claims as equally valid.

When I hear things like this my head feels like it may explode. :(

I am interested to read if this was also a problem in TR's era.

There is an older book but one that I think still is quite valid. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business---Neil Postman There is a slightly revised and updated copy. Though the book really is before social media, smart phones and cable TV took off.

In the book the author notes the length and duration of the Lincoln Douglas debates.
Wiki
The format for each debate was: one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, then the other candidate spoke for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate was allowed a 30-minute "rejoinder."

Now compare this to our current "debates". You speak for one minute and maybe there is a 30 second rebuttal. The attention span of the audience is nil. There is no thoughtful commentary. It's all one liners and zingers. As if they were auditioning for a stand up comedy show. The audience is looking for entertainment.

After reading A Bully Father: Theodore Roosevelt's Letters to His Children by Joan Patterson Kerr, I feel as though I knew this amazing man. How blessed his children were, to have such a great father.

Review: https://www.goodreads.com/review/edit...

Nice review, Carol ! I agree. TR was a special man.

I hope to start Bully Pulpit tonight.

Preface

* These comments are limited to the preface.

Reading the preface I wondered if you think the "Bully Pulpit" has changed or lost its power due to the very different types of media we have today? Do you think it is harder for the President to reach

Page- XIII Re: Taft
"Yet, left alone at the helm when Roosevelt embarked on a yearlong African expedition,..."

I was a bit confused by this statement. It made it sound like TR left Taft in charge in the middle of TR's presidency. However, this is what I found online and the dates of his year long trip seem to correspond that it was after.

"Immediately following Taft's inauguration in 1909, T.R. set out for Africa to hunt big game and collect specimens for the Smithsonian Institution. His decision was based on his desire to leave the political stage to his successor and on his natural need for action. "
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tr...


Re: McClure's Magazine (1893–1929)
McClure's or McClure's Magazine (1893–1929) was an American illustrated monthly periodical popular at the turn of the 20th century.[1] The magazine is credited with having started the tradition of muckraking journalism (investigative, watchdog or reform journalism), and helped shape the moral compass of the day.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McClure...

Do you think there is a magazine similar to McClure's that is published today?

Do you think there is a magazine similar to McClure's that is published today?
What about Collier's?
Or The Saturday Evening Post?


McClure's Magazine (1893–1929) was an American illustrated monthly periodical popular at the turn of the 20th century. The magazine was credited with having started the tradition of muckraking journalism (investigative, watchdog or reform journalism), and helped shape the moral compass of the day.

Writers who published at McClure -- Willa Cather, Arthur Conan Doyle, Herminie T. Kavanagh, Rudyard Kipling, Jack London, Lincoln Steffens, Robert Louis Stevenson, and Mark Twain.

The magazine was founded by S. S. McClure (Samuel Sidney McClue, 1857–1949) and John Sanborn Phillips (1861–1949), who had been classmates at Knox College, in June 1893. The magazine featured both political and literary content, publishing serialized novels-in-progress, a chapter at a time. It ran successfully from 1893 to 1911 when poor health and financial reorganization forced him out (many writers defected to form their own magazine.)

Later, McClure's Magazine published influential pieces by respected journalists and authors including Ida Tarbell, Upton Sinclair, Burton J. Hendrick, Rudyard Kipling, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Robert Louis Stevenson, Willa Cather, and Lincoln Steffens.

Samuel McClure bio -- http://spartacus-educational.com/USAm...

McClure's Magazine sold, at a very low price of 15 cents, and illustrated by as Rudyard Kipling, Robert Louis Stevenson and Arthur Conan Doyle. He also promoted the work of educationalist, Maria Montessori.




The Saturday Evening Post was a bimonthly American magazine. It was published weekly under this title from 1897 until 1963, then biweekly until 1969, and quarterly and then bimonthly from 1971.

The publication traces its historical roots to Benjamin Franklin, The Pennsylvania Gazette was first published in 1728 by Samuel Keimer. The following year (1729), Franklin acquired the Gazette from Keimer for a small sum and turned it into the largest circulation newspaper in all the colonies. It continued publication until 1800. The Saturday Evening Post was founded in 1821 and grew to become the most widely circulated weekly magazine in America.

The Saturday Evening Post published current event articles, editorials, human interest pieces, humor, illustrations, a letter column, poetry (with contributions submitted by readers), single-panel gag cartoons (including Hazel by Ted Key) and stories by the leading writers of the time. It was known for commissioning lavish illustrations and original works of fiction. Illustrations were featured on the cover and embedded in stories and advertising. Some Post illustrations became popular and continue to be reproduced as posters or prints, especially those by Norman Rockwell.

Curtis Publishing Co. stopped publishing the Post in 1969 after the company lost a landmark defamation suit and was ordered to pay over $3 million in damages. The Post was revived in 1971 as a quarterly publication. As of the late 2000s, The Saturday Evening Post is published six times a year by the Saturday Evening Post Society, which purchased the magazine in 1982.

In 1916, Saturday Evening Post editor George Horace Lorimer discovered Norman Rockwell, then an unknown 22-year-old New York artist. Lorimer promptly purchased two illustrations from Rockwell, using them as covers, and commissioned three more drawings. Rockwell's illustrations of the American family and rural life of a bygone era became icons. During his 50-year career with the Post, Rockwell painted more than 300 covers.




The Post also employed Nebraska artist John Philip Falter, who became known "as a painter of Americana with an accent of the Middle West," who "brought out some of the homeliness and humor of Middle Western town life and home life." He produced 120 covers for the Post between 1943 and 1968, ceasing only when the magazine began displaying photographs on its covers.

Each issue featured several original short stories and often included an installment of a serial appearing in successive issues. Most fiction was written for mainstream tastes by popular writers, but also some literary writers were featured: H. E. Bates, Ray Bradbury, Kay Boyle, Agatha Christie, Brian Cleeve, William Faulkner, F. Scott Fitzgerald, C. S. Forester, Ernest Haycox, Robert A. Heinlein, Kurt Vonnegut, Paul Gallico, Normand Poirier, Hammond Innes, Louis L'Amour, Sinclair Lewis, Joseph C. Lincoln, John P. Marquand, Edgar Allan Poe, Sax Rohmer, William Saroyan, John Steinbeck and Rex Stout and Rob Wagner. It also published poetry by such noted poets as Carl Sandburg, Ogden Nash, Dorothy Parker and Hannah Kahn. And JACK LONDON was first published, in serialized form, in the Saturday Evening Post in 1903.

The Post readership began to decline in the late 1950s and 1960s. In general, the decline of general interest magazines was blamed on television, which competed for advertisers and readers' attention. The Post had problems retaining readers: the public's taste in fiction was changing, and the Post‍ '​s conservative politics and values appealed to a declining number of people. Content by popular writers became harder to obtain. Prominent authors drifted away to newer magazines offering more money and status. As a result, the Post published more articles on current events and cut costs by replacing illustrations with photographs for covers and advertisements. At a March 1969 postmortem on the magazine's closing, The Post"was a damn good vehicle for advertising" with competitive renewal rates and readership reports.

I came across this online -- the day that Teddy's first wife died, he wrote . . .

Collier's is no longer in business

The Saturday Evening Post seems like light journalism & photos, not muckraking. It's only published twice month. They do have a FB page.

I'd say The Guardian, maybe? They have a reputation for their investigative journalism. The paper broke the story of the News International phone hacking scandal in 2011, which brought about the closure of one of the highest circulation newspapers in the world (News of the World). It also broke the news of the secret collection of Verizon telephone records held by the Obama administration in 2013, and subsequently revealed the existence of the PRISM surveillance program after it was leaked to the paper by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. The Guardian was named newspaper of the year at the 2014 British Press Awards for its reporting on government surveillance. To me, that would qualify.

Amy wrote: "I'd say The Guardian, maybe? They have a reputation for their investigative journalism. The paper broke the story of the News International phone hacking scandal in 2011, which brought about the cl..."

I think you hit the nail on the head, Amy ! Thank you.

I follow The Guardian and a bunch of other newspapers on FB. However, I wasn't aware it was named newspaper of the year in 2014.

If I am not too tired I am going to try to read chapter 1 this evening. If not tomorrow. I didn't get home from the gym until 7:30 and then I had to make dinner. It's almost 11PM now. I hope you all will be able to start this one soon.

Carol, did you decide if you were going to read the library large print copy or buy a hardcover copy for yourself?

Unfortunately, this book is too big for me to lug on my subway commute to the gym. So my reading time will have to be in the evenings.

Collier's is no longer in business

Yes, I read that they closed in 1911.

Alias Reader wrote: "Unfortunately, this book is too big for me to lug on my subway commute to the gym. So my reading time will have to be in the evenings. ..."

I hear you. That's what happened with me while reading Washington: A Life. Too big to lug around with me, so I ended up only reading it on the weekends. So it took me two full months to get through it. After that experience, I caved and bought The Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism on my Nook.

Reflections on CHAPTERS 1 & 2:

Very impressed with the fact that both Taft and Roosevelt appreciated and valued their wives' intelligence, and understood the roles each would/could play in their political careers. Especially given the prevailing attitude of the time, as expressed in chapter 2 by Delia Torrey (sister of Louise Torrey Taft, Will's mother) about Taft's grandmother, Susan Waters Torrey: "Mother...is ambitious...and ambition in a woman is synonomous with unhappiness."

At one point, Taft tells his father that Nellie's "eagerness for knowledge of all kinds puts me to shame." And I love, love, LOVED that Taft had a progressive sensitivity that was influenced by the feminist teachings of his mother and grandmother, as evidenced by this essay he wrote in high school about coeducation and women's suffrage: "...there is no mental inferiority on the part of the girls. ... Give the woman the ballot, and you will make her more important in the eyes of the world...It becomes this country, as a representative of liberty, to lead in this great reform."
Roosevelt was no slouch in this area, either--as his thesis on "Equalizing Men and Women Before the Law" shared the same progressive attitude towards women: "As regards the laws relating to marriage there should be the most absolute equality preserved between the two sexes.. I do not think the woman should assume the man's name ... I would have the word 'obey' used not more by the wife than by the husband." Was disappointed, however, to see that Teddy didn't support women's suffrage.

Loved this quote about Nellie: She was "...an unconventional woman. From early adolescence, she craved a more expansive life. She liked to smoke, drink beer and play cards for money. She was an avid reader with a passion for classical music, a talented writer, and a dedicated teacher..." When the Tafts were living in the Phillipines, Nellie had "stunned the conservative military establishment by rejecting their strict segregation of whites and native Filipinos, instead insisting upon complete racial equality at the governor's palace." Nellie sounds like a woman who was ahead of her time --and like somebody I might have enjoyed hanging out with!

Also was interested to read about Judge Alphonso Taft (Will's father) and his own legal career. Was struck by his opinion in a case where the superior court had upheld the right of a local school board to prohibit the reading of the Bible in public schools, saying "...the school board has an obligation as well as a right to keep religious partisanship out of the public schools." Today I read an article about a monument to the Ten Commandments that had to be forcibly removed from the Oklahoma state capitol under court order because people there are arguing that it is a "historical monument." (Hint: It's not history. It's RELIGION. It doesn't belong at the state capitol.) It seems strange to me that all these years later we are still arguing about this.

I am going to start chapter 1 in a few minutes. I am looking forward to reading about Taft. To be honest I know zero about him.

I also read about the monument. Some seem determined to mix religion and government. Perhaps it is the lack of historical education and the consequences of mixing the two? A lack of understanding about our constitution? I don't know. Either way it's sad and scary.
If you've ever seen the movie Inherit the Wind about the 1925 trial, it wouldn't surprise me to see something like this happen again today. We seem determined to march backwards towards ignorance.

Chapter 1

What an amazing welcome for TR considering he was no longer president.

I hope to join the group in reading this later this month. I'm next in line from the library. Meanwhile, i'm reading your comments, which is whetting my desire to begin.

:) I am so happy you will be joining us, Deb. It's been ages since I read a book with you.

Reflections on CHAPTERS 3 & 4:

Kearns Goodwin makes the interesting observation that Taft's professional life was shaped not by his own internal motivation but by his unwillingness to disappoint others (i.e. his father, Nellie, etc.) Wonder how many other men have become president not because they wanted to but because they felt similar external pressures?

As a former newspaper journalist myself, I was fascinated by Teddy's ability to understand and embrace just how valuable a "mutually productive alliance" with journalists could be for his political career. The man knew how to work the press to his advantage. To me, a similar comparison could be made with Barack Obama and social media in the 2008 presidential campaign.

While I was saddened by the passages that described how Teddy's mother and wife died on the same day -- I can't even imagine how traumatic that was for him-- I was also taken aback by his actions afterwards in so steadfastly wiping Alice's existence from his life and the life of their infant. "Indeed, Roosevelt's autobiography, written three decades later, failed even to recognize that his first wife had ever lived." And his advice to his niece when she lost her fiance: "treat the past as past, the event as finished and out of life ...never speak one word of the matter, henceforth." This seems ... well, almost pathological.

As I watch the turmoil surrounding the GOP's scramble to find and elect a new Speaker of the House, this line by Teddy about his Republican party made me LOL: The choice of Blaine ... " speaks badly for the intelligence of my party...it may be that 'the voice of the people is the voice of God' in 51 cases out of a hundred, but in the remaining 49 it is quite as likely to be the voice of the devil, or, what is worse, the voice of a fool." Teddy may have been faithful to his party, but he definitely had a clear eye on politics!

Teddy's clear eye on the ways of Washington extended to his ability to cross the aisle to collaborate with his colleagues, even those he had initially dismissed as "stupid looking scoundrels and illiterate thugs." (This quote made me LOL, too.) Loved Teddy's take on the art of compromise: "We did not agree in all things, but we did in some, and those we pulled at together. ... If you are cast on a desert island with only a screwdriver, a hatchet and a chisel to make a boat with, why, go make the best one you can. It would be better if you had a saw, but you haven't. So with men." I think this should be carved in stone and posted on the walls of Congress.

Continuing with my girl crush on Nellie Taft: I loved this quote from her diary: "A book has more fascination for me than anything else." AMEN, sister! While I understand that it was the social convention of the time, it made me angry to read that her brothers departed for college at Harvard and Yale but Nellie was told that her father could not afford to send her, too -- instead she was expected to "come out into society and find herself a good husband." As Kearns Goodwin writes, this "stifled energy and curiosity" made Nellie restless, as she expressed in her diary: "I am beginning to want some steady occupation ... I read a good deal to be sure, but I should have some occupation that would require active work moving around... and I don't know where to find it ... I do so want to be independent." What a waste of a nimble and intelligent mind. Who knows what NELLIE might have accomplished if she had lived today? She might well have become president herself ...

Although I give a nod to Nellie's selection of Taft--he really seemed like a progressive male and a perfect match for her because instead of being threatened or bothered by her intelligence, he was proud of it. He praised her as "the only notable exception among superficial society girls" and was thrilled to report to his family that she had procured a teaching position despite censure from her friends and family: "It is easy enough to talk about woman's widening her sphere and being some thing more than an ornament or a housekeeper but it is not so easy in the present state of society for her to act on that theory." With an enlightened attitude like that, it's no wonder that Nellie understood that marriage to a man like Will wouldn't curtail her ambitions -- it would instead create enhanced opportunities for BOTH of them. Will Taft for President! At this point in the story, I would vote for him.

Alias Reader wrote: ":) I am so happy you will be joining us, Deb. It's been ages since I read a book with you."

Sad but true, Alias. I'm looking forward to it, too.

Amy, your girl crush on Nellie is shared & i haven't read word one in the book. But that comment on books is to be savored!

Chapter 1

Interesting how a candidate could run on this today.

The Square Deal was President Theodore Roosevelt's domestic program formed upon three basic ideas: conservation of natural resources, control of corporations, and consumer protection. These three demands are often referred to as the "three C's" of Roosevelt's Square Deal.
~Wiki

Chapter 1

I'm just posting some references as I read that some may have forgotten exactly what they were.

Personally, I like to write these definitions in my text along with dates if the author has not.

The Sherman Antitrust Act is a landmark federal statute in the history of United States antitrust law (or "competition law") passed by Congress in 1890. Passed under the presidency of Benjamin Harrison, it prohibits certain business activities that federal government regulators deem to be anti-competitive, and requires the federal government to investigate and pursue trusts.
~ Wiki

Chapter 1

Taft- "320" pounds.

In this age where optics matter, do you think we would elect a president of this weight today ?

Here is the Wiki on Taft's health and death.
I don't know if one considers history "spoilers". So read with the following wiki article with that in mind.

Wiki
Taft
Medical conditions and weight

Taft is often remembered as being the most obese president.[114] He was 5 feet 11 inches (1.80 m) tall; his weight peaked at 335–340 pounds (150 kg) toward the end of his Presidency.[115] The truth of the story of Taft getting stuck in a White House bathtub is unclear. However, he once did overflow a bathtub.[116][117]

Evidence from eyewitnesses, and from Taft himself, strongly suggests that during his presidency he had severe obstructive sleep apnea.[115] His chief symptom was somnolence. While President, he fell asleep during conversations, and at the dinner table, and even while standing. He was also strikingly hypertensive, with a systolic blood pressure over 200.[118]

Within a year of leaving the presidency, Taft lost approximately 80 pounds (36 kg). His somnolence problem resolved and, less obviously, his systolic blood pressure dropped 40–50 mmHg (from 210 mmHg). Undoubtedly, this weight loss extended his life.[119]

Soon after his weight loss, he had a revival of interest in the outdoors; this led him to explore Alaska.[120] Beginning in 1920, Taft used a cane; this was a gift from Professor of Geology W. S. Foster, and was made of 250,000-year-old petrified wood.[121]

After several heart attacks in 1924, Taft was slowing down. He wrote in 1925 that his memory was becoming poorer and in 1928, "my mind does not work as well as it did, and I scatter."[122] When he administered the Oath of Office to President Hoover on March 4, 1929, he recited part of the oath incorrectly, later writing in a personal letter, "... my memory is not always accurate and one sometimes becomes a little uncertain.", misquoting again in that letter, but differently.[123]
Death and legacy
Taft's headstone at Arlington National Cemetery

Taft began experiencing hallucinations as 1930 began. On February 3, he stepped down from the Supreme Court. Charles Evans Hughes, whom he had appointed as an Associate Justice while President, succeeded him as Chief Justice. An official statement by his doctors announced that he had suffered from heart disease and atherosclerosis for years, but that he had no other serious ailments.

Five weeks following his retirement, some of which was spent in a state of semi-consciousness, Taft died on March 8, 1930, from cardiovascular disease, and the same date as Associate Justice Edward Terry Sanford's unexpected death. As it was customary for members of the court to attend the funeral of deceased members, this posed a "logistical nightmare", necessitating traveling immediately from Knoxville, Tennessee, for Sanford's funeral to Washington for Taft's funeral.[124][125] The house at which Taft died is now the diplomatic mission of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United States.[126]

Chapter 1

Amy, I am surprised to see the book begin with Taft as president. I thought it would be linear and start with TR. Does the time line jump around ?

Chapter 1

Taft was Secretary or War. A cabinet position we no longer have.


Appointer: The President
with Senate advice and consent

Formation 1798
Abolished 1947

Succession
Secretary of Defense
Secretary of the Army
Secretary of the Air Force

Here is the Wiki on the cabinet position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...

It is a huge pet peeve of mine when a book has end notes but zero indication within the text that there are corresponding notes to the text you are reading. :(

I don't care if the end note just tells the source of quotes or info. However, if it is additional info I would like some indication within the text or a footnote.

Amy wrote: "Reflections on CHAPTERS 3 & 4:

Continuing with my girl crush on Nellie Taft: I loved this quote from her diary: "A book has more fascination for me than anything else.".."

:)

I found these books on Nellie Taft

Nellie Taft: The Unconventional First Lady of the Ragtime Era---Carl Sferrazza Anthony

My Dearest Nellie: The Letters of William Howard Taft to Helen Herron Taft, 1909-1912---William H. Taft

Alias--it starts with Taft as president and all of the problems and strife between the two men, and then goes back to the beginning to explain the story of how and why it got to that point. It's not hard to follow. At least, so far. But I'm only on chapter 7.

Amy wrote: "Alias--it starts with Taft as president and all of the problems and strife between the two men, and then goes back to the beginning to explain the story of how and why it got to that point. It's no..."

Thanks, Amy. I guess I am a bit disappointed as I thought it was going to start with TR then Taft.

I've read other books on TR, so it's not that I am finding it hard to follow. It just I prefer a linear telling of a story. The preface and chapter 1 reads to me like I walked in the middle of a conversation. If someone had zero knowledge of TR I think it would be off putting.

Also without footnotes or explanations I felt I had to read it with my laptop so I could refer back to dates and other things.

Maybe it's because I was reading and watching the baseball game at the same time.

Anyway, thank for the info.

The title of Secretary of War was changed to Secretary of Defense -- same job, just change in title. It felt that it made us sound less aggressive as a nation. I haven't looked it up to refresh my memory but I believe it was soon after WWII.

Bobbie57 wrote: "The title of Secretary of War was changed to Secretary of Defense -- same job, just change in title. It felt that it made us sound less aggressive as a nation. I haven't looked it up to refresh my ..."

Formation 1798
Abolished 1947

They replaced Sec. of War with 3 secretaries.

Succession
Secretary of Defense
Secretary of the Army
Secretary of the Air Force

I agree secretary of war sounds aggressive and negative. Oh that one day we can have a secretary of peace. One can hope and dream.

Being John Lennon's 75th birthday this month, here is a tie in to the topic.

John Lennon - Imagine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLgYA...

Give Peace a Chance - John Lennon & Plastic Ono Band
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B288X...

The Beatles All You Need is Love
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBbHx...

Alias Reader wrote: "It is a huge pet peeve of mine when a book has end notes but zero indication within the text that there are corresponding notes to the text you are reading. :(
..."

I agree! The first time i remember running into this problem, i was halfway through the book before i realized there were endnotes. This is because there were a couple of notes at the end of each chapter. STILL, i didn't & don't like it! Thanks for the warning.

Chapter 2

Re: 19 century women

P22
"And ambition in a woman is synonymous with unhappiness."

Sad but true.