We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
time of his 1953 hip operation In Boston. puckish sense of humor is still intact. Maybe you can’t reach him as easily as you could, but then more people are trying to reach him now.” At almost the same time, the San Francisco Chronicle’s Terrence O’Fla¬ herty wrote: “In his relations with coliunnists (Godfrey) has often been split-tongued and slithery-tailed . . . ungentlemanly . . .” John Crosby, one of the most caustic critics of Godfrey and just about everyone else on TV, thought God¬ frey’s physical condition might have something to do with his peevishness. “Godfrey seemed tired and heavy- hearted on his last show, and for good reason,” Crosby wrote at the close of the 1953-54 season. “He has been in pain and he has had a pretty bad press this year. He’s not entirely blameless for the bad press. Discuss¬ ing the drinking habits of his asso¬ ciates on a national network is not calculated to endear him to just every¬ one. Still, the pain in his hip can be blamed at least partly for the Godfrey indiscretions.” Actually, however, the Godfrey char¬ acteristics which have been getting him into hot water with the press have always been part of the God¬ frey make-up—as was duly noted. Reported Time in February, 1950: “Close associates say that Godfrey’s contrariness is his outstanding char¬ acteristic ... He is confusingly shy one minute and brash the next, senti¬ mental and savage, generous and stingy, as quick to imreasoning affec¬ tion as unreasoning dislike. Every con¬ firmed Godfrey fan knows that from one moment to the next he may erupt into ribaldry, beery pathos or wasp¬ ish exasperation. Ihis analysis seems as accurate now as then. So why did the press stop finding these traits “lovable?” The answer seems to lie in the fact that most Americans sympathize with the underdog. They prefer to root for David ra^er than Goliath. When God¬ frey played fast and loose on the air with commercials, sponsors, his net¬ work employers or Congressmen, he was a brash, but admirable individ¬ ualist battling against opponents stronger than himself. The La Rosa firing, however, sud¬ denly changed the complexion of things. Godfrey’s role was suddenly switched—from hero to villain, from crusader to bully. Godfrey is now embarked on an all- out feud with the press. In recent in¬ terviews with favored newspapermen, he has dwelled on past “errors” by their colleagues. He has promised to even the score in an upcoming auto¬ biography. Some people believe that in again taking on a huge, institutional oppo¬ nent like the press, rather than indi¬ viduals, Godfrey may be making a bid to regain the backing and affec¬ tion of those of his TV and radio fans who have left him. If so, he may be making a mistake. He may be alienating them even fur¬ ther. But it’s a calculated risk. 15