#william randolph hearst

[wgm-beautiful-world]

Blue Roman Pool at William Randolph Hearst's Castle in San Simeon, California, UNITED STATES

[citizenscreen]

The clash between the “boy genius” and the newspaper tycoon heated on #OnThisDay in 1941, when William Randolph Hearst forbid any of his newspapers to run advertisements for Orson Welles’ CITIZEN KANE.

[sesiondemadrugada]

When Knighthood Was in Flower (Robert G. Vignola, 1922).

[listen-to-the-inner-walrus]

not really enjoying tumblrs trend of comparing Thomas Andrews to Stockton Rush 😒Could you share how the two differ despite the fact they died by their own creations?

ive been trying to figure out how to tackle this ask for a few days now because theres so much to disentangle, but disentangle i will.

see, this comparison relies on common misinformation and misconceptions about titanic. its a ship thats been romanticised and mythologised for decades, and every portrayal of it from william randolph hearts yellow newspaper coverage to robin gardiners conspiracy theory to jim camerons film.

what im gonna list to disentangle this whole thing is by no means an exhaustive list of titanic misconceptions, only those relevant to this topic

-titanic was a cruise ship - titanic was an ocean liner not a cruise ship (ive detailed the differences in a different ask here)

-titanic was a brand new unique ship never seen before - not true, ocean liners had existed for decades. theres debate about which was the first, but many agree that its the ss great western which launched in 1843. titanic wasnt even the first launched in her class; that honour goes to the rms olympic.

-it was built with substandard materials and cut corners - this is one of those where theres potentially some truth, but its been misrepresented. theres some evidence that the rivets werent the best made, but the board of trade cleared the ship and she was built with the same materials and basically the same design as her sister ship, rms olympic which sailed for 24 years under the nickname "old reliable" and literally rammed a u-boat during ww1 when she was requisitioned as a troop ship. ultimately, the builders were not blamed in the wreck inquiry and the materials used were not substandard.

-it was built as said above due to the choices of j bruce ismay - yeah so this one obviously ties into the above. theres a lot of unreliable sources who seem to believe ismay oversaw the entire design and every cut corner was due to money. this simply isnt true and isnt how this sort of thing worked. white star had a contract with harland and wolff wherein they would build the ship agreed upon and when it was finished, it would be presented to white star and undergo sea trials, and during that time, white star could reject the ship if they considered it substandard. this is what happened to the ss city of rome. unles. the design itself was to be changed a la britannic after titanic sank (improving safety measures), white star could not interfere. ismay could not force them to use different materials.

-it was all ismays fault - okay, i could go on about this for a long time, but this ask isnt about ismay. the gist of it is that history has blamed ismay due to the influence of william randolph hearst (yeah, the guy from newsies and supported hitler) who hated ismay and blamed him entirely. actual evidence shows ismay helped a lot of people during the sinking itself.

-titanic was badly designed - ive kinda gone over this a little already, but again, titanic was not badly built. she was practically identical to olympic which was a fantastic ship. in the design, no risks were taken. most of the designs were enlarged versions of parts of previous successful ships. she was considered the safest ship on the sea. four of her water-tight compartments could be breached without her sinking which was a big fucking deal.

-thomas andrews was the sole designer - there was actually a team of designers that included andrews. he didnt even draw up the original plans; that was alexander carlisle.

-titanic sinking was a unique situation - yeah nah, boats sank a lot around that time. literally two years after, there was a similar disaster with the rms empress of ireland which goes entirely forgotten nowadays. in the same decade, you also had the sinking of lusitania in 1915, principe de asturias in 1916, volturno in 1913 and even thrown in princess sophia in 1918.

-the sinking was actually caused by a coal bunker fire - this is simply horseshit and im sure im gonna end up having to explain and debunk that one too

-the crew were taking unnecessary risks to win the blue riband - this myth is widespread because of the movie, but titanic was not trying to beat the record of the fastest ship from southampton to new york (thats what the blue riband) is; she physically couldnt. it was held by mauretania at that point with a record of 26.06 knots/48.26 km/hr. titanics top speed was 23 knots. white star as a line never focussed on speed and ismay never told the captain to speed up.

-she was "unsinkable" - this is a little harder to disentangle. the claim itself was "practically unsinkable", but the context of that was to do with how safe titanic was as mentioned above. also, the idea of an unsinkable ship was not quite to white star or harland and wolff; most of the shipping industry believed it.

-almost everything youve heard about the life boats - okay so here you need to throw out your preconceptions of what a life boat is because our modern conception does not match that from the early 1900s. to not get into all the details of life boat philosophy at the time (if you do wanna know, just send me an ask lmao), the main purpose of life boats at this time was ferrying passengers to a rescue ship. that was it. this attitude was informed by both the wrecks of the ss valencia and ss clallam, as well as the miraculous rescue of the rms republic. titanic did not have enough life boats for everyone because it was never expected for the passengers to be alone in the life boats for hours; it was not a design flaw, it was a feature.

-that fucking stupid ship swap myth and the idea that the crew were trying to sink the ship - i dont even want to get into why this is bullshit, plus ive also debunked it in another ask

i highlight all of the above to emphasise the fact that titanic was not a badly built ship. she was designed well, built well and sailed well. many experts agree that the way that she hit the iceberg was the only way she could have sank.

this is not the case with titan and stockton rush. in a previous post, ive gone over the design of the titan, the flaws in it and what experts in the field believe, so im not gonna go over it again, but rest assured, the titan imploded because of rush's actions and decisions.

titanic did not sink because of thomas andrews. its due to his design that anyone survived the titanic because she stayed afloat for over two hours which allowed the crew to launch all the life boats. thomas andrews himself helped many survivors during the sinking and evacuation.

he also was not a rich man using a gravesite as tourism; nepotism was certainly involved in his career but he spent ten years working his way up in the company, helping with the design of countless ships. he was mostly regarded as a good man who worked hard and recognised the hard work of others.

its honestly ludicrous to compare them because the disasters themselves are simply not comparable. the titanic did not sink because of the folly of rich men cutting corners; titan did.

thomas andrews, for any faults he had, knew what he was doing and built a good ship that was unlucky. almost every other ship he helped design didnt sink or if they did, most of them were due to ww1.

its just such a ridiculous comparison, and thats all it is. without the misconceptions and misinformation about titanic, the comparison simply falls apart. its built on a foundation that fundamentally misunderstands the titanic disaster.

if you want to talk about shipwrecks caused by stupid decisions made by rich men, go look up the last incarnation of hms captain or the gunilda or the fucking vasa if you want, you can literally go see that one. but dont besmirch the memory of a guy who, by all acounts, died a hero helping other survive.

[deadpresidents]

ANOTHER REASON WHY USED BOOKSTORES ARE AWESOME

I bought this book -- The Uncrowned King: The Sensational Rise of William Randolph Hearst by Kenneth Whyte -- a few years ago at the wonderful Iliad Bookshop in North Hollywood. However, I haven't gotten around to reading it yet, so it's just been sitting on one of my bookshelves pretty much ever since I bought it.

Today, I just happened to pick it up and start thumbing through it, and this fell out:

Now, I don't know what it is exactly, but it sure looks like a thank you note that would be sent in response to someone who had expressed condolences after someone's illness or death. Was it sent to someone from William Randolph Hearst's estranged wife after he died? That in itself is interesting because Hearst and his wife were estranged for the last 25+ years of his life because he had a very public affair with actress Marion Davies. Here's the thing, though: Hearst died in 1951, but the used book that the thank you card fell out of was published in 2009. The card definitely looks much older than the book, but that just brings up more questions. Did someone have the card from 1951 and just decide to use it as a bookmark since it's a biography of Hearst? Was the card a collectible item about Hearst and they figured that the book was as good a place as any for safekeeping? Is it even a card pertaining to the famous William Randolph Hearst who is the subject of the book, or maybe for his son, William Randolph Hearst Jr., who died in 1993?

I have no idea, but I bought a used copy of a book about William Randolph Hearst for like $7 in North Hollywood a few years ago and on top of the fascinating story of Hearst's crazy life printed within the book's pages, it's created a whole new set of stories and questions for me just because somebody left a unique memento tucked in those pages. All I can say for sure is that you don't get these types of experiences when you're reading e-books on a Kindle or an iPad.

[oldshowbiz]

William Randolph Hearst said Mussolini was "a marvelous man" and praised Hitler's "enormous energy, intense enthusiasm" and "organizing ability."

[workersolidarity]

It should be reminded that the man who propogated and invented the "Ukrainian Genocide" myth of the Holodomor, William Randolph Hearst, said this around the same time he was publicizing this myth:

"if Hitler succeeds in pointing the way of peace and order... he will have accomplished a measure of good not only for his own people but for all of humanity."

He also paid Mussolini $1'500 weekly, three times his public salary, to write opinion articles in Hearst's newspapers throughout the early 1930's.

And yet, this man and his newspapers' articles from back then have been completely rehabilitated in mainstream academic circles and the Holodomor myth continues being propagated as history.

[onefootin1941]

Marion Davies and her boudoir doll, 1920s.

[pedroam-bang]

Mank (2020)

[emmedoesntdomath]

Twofer in this one

Along with a wrench thrown

BILL AND DARCY😌😍

(I’m so normal abt them 😌😌😌)

i love themmmmmm

so I’ve decided that they were childhood best friends (they were, shut up), right? and so they grew up together, laughed, commiserated, blah blah blah, all of that lovely stuff. it’s the stereotypical childhood you see in the movies.

and then, as they got older, their relationship just. didn’t get any weaker? no, it got STRONGER. and rn you’re like, yes, emme, no shit, that makes sense. no, it doesn’t, because their relationship was already so close that they WERE MAKING EACH OTHER CLOTHES BECAUSE THEY WERE LIKE, AW, WOULDN’T IT BE FUN IF WE MATCHED (like, think harry and louis outfits while they were in 1D). THEY WORKED TOGETHER. THEY ATE DINNER TOGETHER. THEY SPENT LITERALLY ALL OF THEIR TIME TOGETHER.

AND THEN THEY MOVED IN TOGETHER.

and this is where shit gets good, I swear. because these men grow old together, too. oh, they eventually move out after a couple years, they get married to lovely women, for sure, because why wouldn’t they? and they have adorable children who become very successful adults, and they were so, so proud.

and then life comes to an end, because it has to. bill and darcy are old, and so happy. they’ve had good lives, they say.

bill goes first, and it’s a quiet, peaceful affair, if somewhat unexpected. he’s surrounded by his family, now both old and young, and he just falls asleep.

darcy’s not there for it, couldn’t be there for it, and that kills him when he finds out.

he lives for another two months, and they’re sad, dreary things completely consumed with his grief. his wife had died a year before, but darcy had never felt this low without her. but when bill left him? part of his soul flew away, like a butterfly in the wind, and darcy was stranded, frantically trying to stay afloat.

when he finally leaves the earth, he is too surrounded by loved ones and as comfortable as he could be. not only that, he is peaceful, and even happy for the first time in months. he repeatedly tells his children that he will be fine, that everything will be fine now.

his last words are, “bill, I’m on my way”.

[lux-vitae]

The Neptune Pool at Hearst Castle designed by Julia Morgan & William Randolph Hearst (1924-1936), San Simeon, California

[claudia1829things]

Favorite Episodes of "THE ALIENIST: ANGEL OF DARKNESS" Season Two (2020)

Below is my ranking of the Season One episodes of "THE ALIENIST: ANGEL OF DARKNESS", the 2020 adaptation of Caleb Carr's 1997 novel, “The Angel of Darkness”.  Created by Jakob Verbruggen and Cary Fukunaga, the television series starred Daniel Brühl, Luke Evans and Dakota Fanning:

1.  (2.05) "Belly of the Beast" - The team races to find the killer responsible for murdering an employee at the Lying-In Hospital.

2.  (2.04) “Gilded Cage” - The clock is ticking for the team to locate baby Ana Linares, the infant daughter of the Spanish consul-general. Meanwhile, Sara Howard, now a private detective, is worried about her young undercover detective Bitsy Sussman.  William Randolph Hearst hosts a lavish ball celebrating his goddaughter Violet's engagement to John Moore, New York Times illustrator.

3.  (2.07) “Last Exit to Brooklyn” - Sara, Moore and alienist Laszlo Kreizler travel to Brooklyn in search of clues hidden in the killer's dark past.

4.  (2.01) “Ex Ore Infantium” - One year after Season One, Sara seeks out Dr. Kreizler's help in finding the kidnapped baby Ana.  Dr. Kreizler reunites with Moore and the rest of the original team.  And their search for the missing child brings them into contact with a mysterious woman with a murderous past, who is connected to a notorious gang.

5.  (2.08) “Better Angels” - Sara, Moore, and Kreizler have their final confrontation with the killer/kidnapper, and struggle with decisions about their future paths.

6.  (2.02) “Something Wicked” - Sara uncovers a clue at the Siegel-Cooper department store.  Moore struggles to balance his personal and professional life, as he investigates a link to New York's criminal underworld. Kreizler suspects dark goings-on at the Lying-In Hospital, while former police chief Thomas Byrnes plots against their investigations.

7.  (2.06) “Memento Mori” - Sara and John continue to search for information about Libby Hatch, a nurse at the Lying-In Hospital.  Kreizler is nearly ruined by a tragic accident. Sara and the team have to work with Byrnes to find a new missing child from the Vanderbilt family.

8.  (2.03) “Labrynith” - Sara persuades a young nurse to disclose what happens behind closed doors at the Lying-In Hospital.  Meanwhile, Kreizler is convinced that hypnosis might unlock Señora Linares’ traumatic memories of her daughter’s kidnapping.  Moore introduces Sara to a well-connected friend to further the investigation.

[citizenscreen]

On January 8, 1941, William Randolph Hearst forbids any of his newspapers to run advertisements for Orson Welles’ CITIZEN KANE. #OnThisDay

[keepingchrometabs]

Citizen Kane - dir. Orson Welles - (1941)

[listen-to-the-inner-walrus]

you know, theres a lot of reasons to hate james cameron, almost all of them valid, but theres one nitpicky one that doesnt even make me that angry, just kinda sad.

see, when he made titanic, he was well aware that j bruce ismay wasnt a selfish evil man and that he didnt force the captain to sail at full speed to try and break the speed record because titanic physically couldnt.

BUT ismay had managed to upset william randolph hearst previously and so when the titanic sank, hearst used his massive news empire to slander and lie about ismay until that became how it was remembered in the usa.

and james cameron wanted to make this film that was very very very accurate to the titanic, but not to the titanic itself rather the story of the titanic as its remembered. and so he made it accurate to hearsts lies

and it just fucking sucks that a guy who spent a lot of the sinking helping people into lifeboats and saving lives is now known as some moustache twirling villain who cared not for the human cost.

like jim, you could have used that movie to exonerate him in the public record. you dont have to make him some shining hero, but you could have at least give the guy the dignity to not portray the lies made about him by william randolph fucking hearst in your blockbuster film.

because thats what most people know about the titanic: what was in the film. they think ismay was trying to break the speed record no matter the cost and simply decided not to have enough lifeboats because they wouldnt look good when he didnt design the damn ship himself and the philosophy of lifeboats was completely different back then.

and idk it just makes me sad anytime i hear people liken evil businessmen in fiction to ismay; its holding up the lies of an actual evil businessman.