Project Kingfish 1951-1967
23
Alan Fisher, chief of the overseas production division, proposed investing an
additional $50,000 a year to support a new organization with talented young pho
tographers to supplement the supply of stories for Kingfish “now largely limited to
poorer photographic quality” provided by Associated Newsreel. Fisher added that
good music and subtle narration cannot make up for what is “deficient photo
graphically.” Meanwhile, in a 1965 memo to Guarco, USIA official Frank Tribble
urged increased government control over newsreel production because “all efforts
to improve quality” through Associated Newsreels had gone for naught (USIA,
1966a, 16-17).
USIA evaluations of the effectiveness of Project Kingfish also focused on the
difficulty of assessing the number of people comprising the overseas newsreel
audience. A comprehensive Kingfish report prefaced its evaluation with the fol
lowing observation:
A film with little to say, though it may be seen by millions, wins few
friends for America. Hardly more beneficial is an appealing message on
celluloid that reaches but a handful of viewers, especially if they are citi
zens who play only a minor political role. (USIA, 1966a, 23)
The report acknowledges that the determination of the size and character of
the audience “rests largely on faith and a few scanty statistics over a period of
years” (USIA, 1966a, 23). Proponents of Kingfish are taken to task for accepting
booking reports at face value and confidently envisioning “an average audience
for all performances, even matinees, at 90 percent” (23). An example of this overly
optimis F