Charles Foster Kane: Journalistic Idealism in the Progressive Era

Charles Foster Kane: Journalistic Idealism in the Progressive Era

By: Richard J. Van Dyke

Pikes Peak Community College

JOU105125 Introduction to Mass Media: SS3

Kitty King: Instructor

The period of United States history from 1890 to 1930 is popularly referred to as the “Progressive Era” (Campbell, Martin, and Fabos, 2011. p. 26).  Immediately following the upheaval of post-Civil War Reconstruction, and the excess of the Gilded Age, it is best known as a time of great social and political change (Campbell, Martin, and Fabos, 2011. p. 26).  The journalistic legacy of the Progressive Era was characterized by “yellow journalism” and “muckraking” (Campbell, Martin, and Fabos, 2011. p. 226).  These styles of writing are generally thought of as purely sensationalistic, but hard hitting investigative journalism also grew out of this movement (Campbell, Martin, and Fabos, 2011. p. 26, 226).  This is the setting for the film Citizen Kane, and the themes of this era are broadly reflected by the thoughts and actions of our protagonist, Charles Foster Kane.  As a true man of his times, Charles Foster Kane thoroughly embraced the spirit of political and social reform that were the hallmark of the Progressive Era. 

At the onset of the film, after it recounts his back story, Kane is presented as a wealthy, young ideologue.   Freshly returned to the United States from the sparkling capitals of Europe, and having been expelled from the top Ivy League universities in the country, he decides that, “It would be fun to run a newspaper”.  The influence of European culture, and his disdain for authority were key factors in developing his political leanings, and his passion for social change.  He incorporates this youthful enthusiasm, and a desire to better the life of the common man into his management of the “New York Inquirer”.  In the style of the times, his headlines are flashy. The truth comes second to the dramatic tone Kane strives to set for the publication.  In striving for what today we would call “social justice”, he sets out to make the Inquirer a vehicle for change.  Kane eschews the monetary interests of the paper in favor of these ideals, proclaiming that he would continue the paper on its current course, “even at a million dollar annual loss, for decades”.  This “win at any cost” mentality is a theme that resonates throughout the film and was indicative of Yellow Journalism (Campbell, Martin, and Fabos, 2011. p. 226).

  Once established in his position as “Editor in Chief” at the Inquirer, Kane became widely celebrated by the public for being a champion of the people.  In his “Declaration of Principles”, a list of values he vowed to uphold during his tenure as editor, he states, "I will provide the people of this city with a daily paper that will tell all the news honestly. I will also provide them with a fighting and tireless champion of their rights as citizens and as human beings."  The dichotomy between Kane’s stated values and his, “ends justify the means” actions is striking.  In direct opposition to his publicly pronounced convictions, Kane “head hunts” talented reporters from another newspaper, and derisively states to his partner and best friend, “You don’t expect me to keep any of those promises, do you?”.  This cynicism first begins to express itself in small ways, but ultimately, he succumbs to it.

As the film progresses, Kane continues to pursue his journalistic manipulation of public opinion.  He begins to use the inquirer as a megaphone to further his own personal agenda.  He publishes sensationalistic and speculative headlines with the hope to incite the United States into war with Spain.  During his campaign for governor of New York, he runs as “The Fighting Liberal”, and publishes articles with the specific intent of advancing his candidacy and crushing his opposition.  After a personal scandal derails his campaign and political aspirations, he staunchly refuses to pull out of the race, and continues attempting to defame his opponent.  Finally, losing the race for governor, he runs the disingenuous headline, “Charles Foster Kane Defeated, Fraud At Polls".  These are all strong examples of the hyperbole and outright fabrication so common during this age of journalism (Campbell, Martin, and Fabos, 2011. p. 226).  Actual news often took a back seat to circulation numbers and editorial agenda (Campbell, Martin, and Fabos, 2011. p. 226).

Entering middle age, Kane’s journalistic idealism begins to be replaced by a cold pragmatism.   His principle motivation becomes the accumulation of money and power.  In the vein of William Randolph Hearst, who the character is arguably based on, he begins to amass a publishing empire (Campbell, Martin, and Fabos, 2011. p. 185).  This change is also reflected in his personal life.  In an argument with his first wife, Emily, Kane demonstrates his growing contempt for anyone foolish enough to disagree with him or stand in his way.  She asks him about scathing articles published in the Inquirer that malign the President, her uncle.  She states, “Charles, People will think…” , to his callous reply, ”… what I tell them to think!”  This stark revelation makes it abundantly clear to her (and the viewing audience) that Charles Kane, man of the people, is no more.  His metamorphosis into a self-serving plutocrat is complete.

Old age sees Kane become a shadow of the man he once was. A deluded recluse sentenced to a self-imposed exile. From the safety and seclusion of his opulent mansion, ironically named “Shangri La”, he remains bent on retaining control of his crumbling empire, and those around him.   All is for naught, however, and finally, when his second wife leaves him, he cuts off all contact with the outside world.  Only in death does he finally come to realize how he has lost his way.

As an example of its times, Citizen Kane creates an accurate picture of the high ideals, and passion for domestic social reform indicative of the Progressive Era (Campbell, Martin, and Fabos, 2011. p. 26).  Fighting for the common man and taking on social injustice in the press was a relatively novel idea at the time (Campbell, Martin, and Fabos, 2011. p. 226).  The character of Charles Foster Kane, idealistic journalist, embodied the dramatic spirit of yellow journalism and the muckrakers of his era.  That he ultimately fails in his endeavor is not the lesson to be learned from the film.  What the viewer should take away from the narrative, is that he strived to make a reality of the groundbreaking, progressive ideals of his time, and advocated tirelessly for the plight of the common man.   That’s the “take-away”, and a moral worthy of the greatest film ever made.