Citizen Kane. William Randolph Hearst. Star Wars sucking. Vampires. Abuse en masse. Full-breasted obfuscation of geographical desirability. What do all these have in common? The answer could pay out a few billion! My guess is that the answer is already revealed: Hearst. What comes first to the modern mind when invoking the name ‘William Randolph Hearst’? I bet most would just acknowledge the implicit patina on such a pompous amalgam of mouth sounds, and truly what is in a name? Something about announcing one’s middle name is inevitably pompous in modern America, so immediately the reader is cued to something to do with prestige, capital, or sheer arrogance. My question as it comes to Mr. Hearst, is what was his true motivation? All three of these? Simple rabble-rousing?
For those not in the know, here is a Grok-generated summary of Bill Hearst (this is what will call him for brevity’s sake) and his story:
William Randolph Hearst (1863–1951) was an American newspaper publisher and politician who built the largest media empire of his time, founding Hearst Communications, which at its peak included over 30 newspapers, magazines, and radio stations. His sensationalist “yellow journalism” style, particularly through the New York Journal, profoundly shaped American media by prioritizing dramatic stories and illustrations to boost circulation, influencing public opinion on events like the Spanish-American War. A media genius with broad influence, Hearst also dabbled in politics as a U.S. Congressman, invested in Hollywood, and amassed one of the world’s greatest art collections, commissioning the lavish Hearst Castle in California. His life inspired Orson Welles’ 1941 film Citizen Kane, portraying him as a complex figure of ambition and excess. (Grok, 2025)
Grok chooses a few compelling terms here. The first that stands out is media genius. This is interesting, as it implies that media was tremendously complicated in the 1900s. We’re talking newspapers and early film project (think Lumière brothers, zoetrope, et al.). Does genius apply when the media environment that Hearst occupied was virginal and unhardened to ‘bleeding and leading’ journalism. Does it take a genius to understand that yelling, “rape,” or “fire,” in public is enough to arrest even the most sedate every(wo)man. Citizen Kane is a wonderful movie, but was Hearst truly a wonderful man worthy of so much study?
My ears perk most at the generational story element with Patti Hearst being in the limelight as she was. In short, I call bullshit on the entirety of the Patti Hearst saga. I don’t think she was stolen. I think an empire rested on her shoulders (or neck, wrist, and garage, more likely) and a familial mogul knew how to capitalize on her youth and beauty amid a yet under-complicated media environment, where blood yet led: popular irony was still finding its footing as a method of product propaganda but by the 1970s, it was well-established that a damsel in distress was a narrative that didn’t demand major production studios, but simply newspaper, magazine, gossip column, hair salon yakkity-yakking and so on. In other words, it was seen that scandal was CHEAP! And in the interest of maximizing profits, any respectable institutions SOLE goal, why wouldn’t one collaborate with the archetypally-manifest media princess to scandalize a few thrills from the aether? The only real victim is the gullible, hard-working public, who has the decency to take high society at its word. High society, of course, is too busy scrunching its nose to consider the true ethics of dishonesty and honesty, or virtue broadly. Pearls don’t make a princess, and a bank robbery oughtn’t make a story. Now, Perls… Next time. <3
Leave a Reply