Harold Bride And The Press

[Jemma Hyder]

This subject got somewhat woven in with a thread about the media elsewhere, but it seems to be far more focused on Ernest Gill and I thought I would start this to see if anyone wanted to carry on discussing this angle......

As far as Harold Bride's testimony of events goes, there are certain points that need to be considered

1) How much of the accounts was Bride sensationalising (Is that a word lol) his story?
2)If so what motivation would he have?
3)If it wasn't him who was hamming it up then who was doing it on his behalf?
4) In any case what sources of his information can we rely on at all to give us an accurate picture?

As far as Bride striving to make his story more interesting, I think it was Inger who pointed out that unlike Gill, he was being pursued for his story. As soon as the Carpathia docked he had not even stopped work before the inventor of wireless himself appeared in the operating room armed with a reporter. Some of the account does sound a little exaggerated but he didn't need to make his story any more interesting than it already was. I know if I was giving my version of events in front of Marconi I'd be a little subdued and not inclined to sit telling huge whoppers in front of th guy.

The story starts getting out of hand as other papers pick it up and try to embelish it. they have to come up with something better if they can't get the man himself right? Hence the American report in a smaller paper claiming that the stoker was gunned down after he tried to steal Phillips' life jacket.

I am by no means claiming that Bride never once exaggerated the truth. I am personally more inclined to believe that the tale of both him and Phillip's tieing on their lifejackets after examination outside more believeable than Bride having to do it for him. And I am always changing my own personal opinion about the stoker incidentbecuase there are so many contrasting stories about it.

I don't see that Bride had much motivation to get wildly creative when giving the report on the carpathia. he had already been told he was getting a hefty amount for it, but then was he aware that Jack Binn's only got half of his promised amount, or something in the region of it, and for this reason did he exaggerate? (Oh god I am confusing myself now!)If anybody had an excuse to ham it up it was those media figures who didn't get the original story (Just my opinion)

As for his varying testimonies, I personally wouldnt give note to much that wasn't in the NYT, or either Inq. I would be sceptical about it. And even with the above three there are significant gaps, but as we only have Bride to go on for much of it I think we have to make the best of what is available to us even if it doesn't give us all the answers.

 

[George Behe]

Hi, Jemma!

>2)If so what motivation would he have?

Perhaps Bride felt that his actual experiences were less interesting than they 'should' have been, since (for the most part) Bride had just acted as Phillips' errand boy during the sinking and did not play a major part in the transmission or reception of wireless messages.

Just a thought.

All my best,

George

 

[Jemma Hyder]

George

there's a couple of things that back that theory up. If in reality, Harold's only role in the disaster was to run about after Jack (Which it was) then the story about him having to tie on his colleagues life jacket (Which I am not convinced of) makes him sound slightly more heroic, the same for the stoker tale. Poor little slim build mini Harold decking an evil and unidentified person who was trying to remove his brave and devoted colleagues jacket! What a guy! Especially when it was all in the line of protecting Jack who was too busy apparently to notice that he was being undressed.

Thanks

Jemma

 

[Pat Cook]

There may be one aspect to this story which, I confess I haven't really looked into, may have some bearing on Bride, as with so many others I'm guessing.

Basically, it boils down to this - by the time you get in court, you REALLY only say such things as you are sure of, such events as you firmly believe to be true. I know I've been perplexed at Bride's account of how he lost track of Phillips (in the newspaper article, Phillips was definitely on the overturned collapsible; during the U S hearings Bride said he HEARD Phillips was on the collapsible; during the British Hearings Bride stated the last time he was Phillips was on deck of the sinking ship...) is only one such event.

We are left to our own judgment here with Bride, along with Hichens and his account of what really happened between the sighting of the iceberg and the collision - these are the only men who can tell us what happened - the other witnesses perished in the event. JMHO here, but when I stop to consider what Bride has just gone through (surviving in the water, legs and feet damaged, then on the Carpathia, little sleep and back in harness to help out Cottam) it seems like he already has plenty to make himself sound heroic - these aforementioned events would ALL sound brave, I believe, to most people.

Also, again, I firmly believe his newspaper story was 'doctored' a bit by the journalists.

Again, this is just my humble opinion here - that it for what it's worth.

Best wishes for the New Year!
Cook

 

[Jemma Hyder]

Pat,

Agreed Harold's story is toned down for the hearings and agreed his story had to have been meddled with to some extent but IMHO I really think he wouldn't have gone to town with the fictional aspect of his story right in front of Gueglielmo Marconi himself. I get terrified of my team manager never mind the guy who founded the multi billion dollar empire I work for!

I read a part of the senate hearing today where Senator Smith point blank implied that there was a growing tradition among wireless operators to withold information for their own financial gain. The more I read it the more I think he was set to prove certain thing he already had in his head. He badgers Cottam to try and get him to provide info he simply dosen't remeber and I think it was one of the officers who says his face something along the lines of "f I don't rememebr I can't tell you" after being pushed to provide certain info.

Would this repress Harold's testimony at all do you think? at one point Smith is quite rude to him, at a point in time where British attitudes to Americans were vastly different to what they are today. After all you're still talking about the days of the Mighty British Empire, Be British, An Englishman knows his duty etc.(Believe Harold's father said something along those lines at one point in the aftermath) Lol just trying to get some social bearing on the age.......

Cheers

Jemma

 

[Pat Cook]

Hi, Jemma. I agree totally with this - ANY testimonies in a court, whether a trial or hearing or whatever, can be daunting. And Senator Smith could be downright imposing, not to mention tremendiously tedious and tenacious. In this respect, perhaps, Bride may have felt freer to go into more detail prior to the hearings.

I just meant to say that, while we may never know for sure, I didn't believe he made up the material about his twarting the stealing of the lifebelt off Phillips back by the stoker. My logic, for what it is, is simply he was something of a hero already and wouldn't need to make up such a story.

I always wondered, too, about that woman that he and Phillips had to tend, who also wandered into the Wireless Room.

Best regards,
Cook

 

[Jemma Hyder]

Someone's just started a thread on that. I must confess I did a lot of Harold research a couple of years ago but he has been somewhat neglected. I know they had a visit from Butt at one point prior to the fourteenth but I will have to dig up some paper to find the work I had done re the woman.

I think personally that something happended regarding a stoker but that is probably the most exaggerated part of Harold's story. As I mentioned before I even had smething claiming that Harold shot the guy!

Thanks

Jemma

 

[Jemma Hyder]

Pat,

On the subject of Smith I am working on the Senate hearings as we speak and his attitude and lack of respect towards Marconi whilst he was giving his testimony is frankly appalling. He appears to have been balling him down at one particular point trying to imply that he masterminded a witholding of events for the Operator's financial gain and made a habit of doing so. Appears that at that point he was being very rude.

Cheers

Jemma

 

[Pat Cook]

I, too, also remember reading somewhere that Bride shot the stoker but I can't find it right now.

Also, there are people FAR more well versed on Alden Smith than I but I confess I'm not much of a fan of his. If you ever read (or have read) Wyn Wade's "Titanic - End of a Dream" you'll get a very pro attitude toward Smith.

Best regards,
Cook

 

[Jemma Hyder]

Pat,

Although I haven't seen both sides of the story I must confess I think he is most definitely rude and somewhat ignorant in places. from the tone of what they are saying at one point I think he and G Marconi must have been shouting at each other. Marconi had a VERY short temper at times and had little (patience when people tried him so I imagine he lost it very quickly.

I believe the bit about the shooting appeared in a tiny column in one of the American papers but I can't pinpoint which one at the moment either.

Smith seems to have had it it in for HTC from the very beginning, although when he tried to make out his conspiracy theory Marconi supported his Operator. I think I remember both Harold's getting short with Smith at some point, as well as Lightoller, and I think one of the Junior Officers.

I really don't know much about smith at all do you recall any background on him?

Thanks

Jemma

 

[Inger Sheil]

Jemma - Wade's book is probably the best published biographical source on Smith, albeit an almost entirely uncritical one.

Several witnesses became somewhat exasperated with Smith (Lowe was indeed one of them - he later made some rather acerbic remarks about the Senator to his family). Wade suggests that Smith had more of a rapport with the 'common' sailors, but in all the interviews I've seen with the crew on arrival back in the UK, I can only recall seeing negative comments - Hichens, for example had some disparaging things to say about Smith.

The truth, as with so much else, probably lies between two extremes - I'd say he was neither the absolute fool or buffoon the press sometimes pilloried him as, nor was he the completely altruistic home-town hero Wade writes about.

I recommend Wade if you haven't read it - he has some comments about Smith's attitude toward Marconi and why he liked to tilt at 'home-made halos' (which comes across as Smith being more smugly self-righteous and even downright jealous than Wade intended).

~ Inger

 

[Jemma Hyder]

Inger,

Is it in print in the UK at all at the moment? it is one I haven't laid my hands on yet. Any luck with the census yet lol. Been waiting four years to find my great grandfather as we have no offical record of his birth and it would help a good deal. Have got a sweet little great aunt whos waiting on the info so its frustrating lol!

From reading the enquiry Smith is not one of my favourites but i'd like to read Wade's point of view

Thanks

Jemma

 

[Dave Gittins]

Admittedly Wade tends to overcompensate for the neglect of Senator Smith, who in many ways was a man ahead of his time. All the same, his book is generally very sound and fair.

Where I take issue with Wyn is that I see the inquiry as very much Smith's ego trip which at times flouted the terms of the Senate resolution that established it. Wyn himself mentions that Smith tried to use the hearings to extract evidence that would help plaintiffs in a civil case. When reading the hearings, I suggest keeping the Senate resolution before you and keep asking whether Smith is keeping within its terms.

 

[Pat Winship]

Apropos of Harold Bride and the newspapers-- a friend and I went digging in the New York papers last year, to find which one had accused Bride and Cottam of transmitting a request for some American baseball scores. Bride took care to deny this in no uncertain terms at the US Inquiry, and I don't doubt him at all. Most likely, some reporter wrote it out of frustration that the Carpathia was not giving out any news of the disaster. So far, however, we haven't been able to locate it. Do you know anything about this, Jemma?

Pat W

 

[Inger Sheil]

Sorry Jemma - didn't see your earlier query. I'll have a look in Foyles and some of the other large bookshops down Charing Cross Rd tomorrow to see if I can locate a copy for you - always looking for an excuse to browse the maritime sections over lunch! I bought mine a few years back on-line while still living in Australia, back in the dim-dark pre-movie days when it was difficult to buy good Titanic titles off the shelves.

Pat - I'd forgotten about that little canard until you mentioned it!

~ Ing