Drew Pearson

Discuss Anything & Everything Tucker

Moderators: Tuckerfan1053, TuckerCar, Phantomrig

Forum rules
The views expressed by users of this forum are their own and do not reflect the position of the Tucker Automobile Club of America, Inc., its members, officers or directors. Each user is responsible for the content of his/her own posts.

By utilizing these boards you are agreeing to these terms and agree to hold harmless Tucker Automobile Club of America, Inc. and its members, officers or directors from any part in the outcome of your use of these boards.

The Tucker Automobile Club of America, Inc. reserves the right to delete, edit or otherwise modify posts as it deems necessary for the organization or primary purpose of the site. Please report any activity which is libelous, inflammatory, or in violation of common decency to the forum administrator immediately.

Drew Pearson

Postby Tuckerfan1053 » Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:51 pm

If you'll remember, Drew Pearson was a radio/newspaper reporter who decided to do an "expose" of Tucker and greatly damaged Tucker's reputation. (Pearson apparently had a bit of an ax to grind with Tucker as a relative of Pearson's had tried to invest in the company but was rejected.) For a film class I have to take, one of the movies we're assigned to watch is the 1951 classic science fiction film The Day The Earth Stood Still, I'm watching it, and six minutes into the film, a man calling himself Drew Pearson appears. Checking with IMDB.com, I find that it is, in fact, the same Drew Pearson who attacked Tucker. Kind of soils my whole opinion of the film, now. :( (I've seen the film before, but its been years ago, and I didn't make the connection until just now.)
User avatar
Tuckerfan1053
Moderator
 
Posts: 622
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:00 am
Location: Gallatin, TN

Re: Drew Pearson

Postby TUCKER » Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:57 pm

I seen the film before but never tought it would be the same person. Interesting, is it really him???
User avatar
TUCKER
Tucker Fan
 
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:55 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Drew Pearson

Postby Randy Earle » Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:21 am

Yes, it was him. He could be bought.

Image

Tucker was not the only person in the media that was attacked by Pearson. When I was in college he was often listed as being a flagrant "Yellow Jounalist".

Here is part of an article regarding a personal vendetta by Pearson on General George S. Patton:

According to reports of Drew Pearson's personality, even by his friends, he was at best, a "bastard". He was similar to a copperhead snake. It made no difference "who" he bit as long as he bit "someone". It was his nature. Pearson would attack friend or foe alike. Pearson's only requirement was that it would benefit Pearson.

We now become involved with four other principle characters in our story. They are Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States; Cordell Hull, Secretary of State; Sumner Welles, Undersecretary of State; and Ernest Cuneo, Pearson's lawyer.

Pearson was pro-communist, pro-Chinese, and pro-Russian. As a friend of Russia, he demanded in 1943 that the Allied Command create a second front in Europe to assist our Russian "friends". When Pearson's demands were not immediately met, he became angry.

President Roosevelt was by no means an "admirer" of Cordell Hull. The reason he had appointed Hull as Secretary of State was nothing more than a political move to placate southern Democrats. Whereas Hull was more inclined to the idea of a "close to home" foreign policy, Roosevelt favored a "good neighbor" policy. Hull resisted all attempts to bring about that "good neighbor" policy. Roosevelt then turned to Sumner Welles, Undersecretary of State, who, like Roosevelt, favored a more flexible foreign policy. What Roosevelt succeeded in doing was to create a confrontation between Hull and Welles. Hull wanted very much to be rid of Welles and was willing to do just about anything to attain that goal. Roosevelt had known for some time that Welles was a homosexual. He cared little. His attitude was that as long as Welles was doing an adequate job, his sexual preferences should be his own concern. Welles, backed up by Roosevelt, refused to budge from his position and held his ground against Hull until the latter part of 1943. At that time some friends of Hull (who were of course enemies of Welles) began to attack Welles. In newspaper columns they began to make references alluding to his sexual preferences claiming that he was a "security risk". The American public was far less tolerant of homosexuality in those days than they are today. Welles finally resigned his post as Undersecretary citing among other reasons the possibility of being a "security risk" as newspapers had suggested.

Welles' forced resignation infuriated Pearson, who was a close friend of Welles. In retribution, Pearson vociferously attacked Secretary Hull stating that Hull had only one idea in mind; that being to not have a second front, nor a "good neighbor" policy, but that he wanted to "bleed Russia white". The Secretary upon responding said, "Pearson's allegations are pure falsehood; monstrous and diabolical lies." Roosevelt, always the politician, then chimed in with Hull. Using one of his favorite labels, he blasted Pearson as a "chronic liar". Knowing Pearson's affection for the Russians, Roosevelt then added insult to injury by claiming that the Russians might be offended by Pearson's untrue remarks.

Pearson, being as friendly as he was with the Russians and also being pro-communist, had anxieties about Roosevelt's remarks. He worried over the impact of the President's criticism because it could hurt his position with the Russians and also because it was a blow to his credibility. He then called an emergency meeting with his lawyer, Ernest Cuneo.

Cuneo suggested that Pearson might use a "distraction" to focus the public eye away from his lost battle. His idea was to create a sensational, new diversion. This, then, was the moment that Fate had been planning. Now was the time that some seemingly unrelated occurrences would be tied together to make history. Cuneo suggested that Pearson use the story of the "slapping incidents". There were a number of Washington correspondents, along with the North African correspondents, who had already heard the story, but they had avoided using it. Pearson had no scruples about any story at any time. Pearson was one of the masters of "yellow journalism". He never failed to use this mastery for his own benefit and to his advantage. On November 21, 1943, Pearson broke his three month old "scoop". He had predicted, too, in his broadcast that Patton would never again hold a responsible war assignment. He was wrong, as he often was.
Randy Earle
 

Re: Drew Pearson

Postby Phantomrig » Tue Sep 29, 2009 10:55 am

Wow, I just watched that movie with my family last weekend, I have seen that movie hundreds of times but never noticed him in there before, now I have an excuse to watch it again soon.
Image
User avatar
Phantomrig
Moderator
 
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:33 pm
Location: Brook Park, Ohio


Return to Tucker Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest