Date:  Tue, 1 Nov 1994 10:29:10 -0800

From:  THOMAS CLARK <tlc[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]NEVADA.EDU>

Subject: Re: Boulder Dam



On Mon, 31 Oct 1994, James Beniger wrote:



  [snip]



> I'd like to hear Thomas Clark clarify/elaborate the sentence "Local media

> are careful to make the distinction between Boulder and Hoover"



  When newspaper writers talk about the construction phase, they use

"Boulder." When they refer to anytime later than 1947 they use "Hoover."

Television people (we can't really call them reporters around here) are

clueless. They usually use "Hoover" for everything.

  Part of the confusion stems from an interesting political spat. In

1928, the paperwork was signed into law for "Boulder." In 1931, the

structure was dedicated as "Hoover." In 1933, Hoover was out of the

picture. The Democrats, seizing the opportunity, CHANGED the name back

to "Boulder." In 1947, Congress officially (!) made the name "Hoover."

  A group of Boulder City old-timers who worked on the dam call themselves

The '33 Club. This was the year they rid themselves of the hated

sobriquet "Hoover." These are also the folks that the local newspapers

used to interview. But our major regional newspaper, the Las Vegas

Review Journal runs columns only by George Wills, Wm Buckley, Sobran, R.

Emmet Tyrrell and others from The American Spectator. This weekend it

endorsed political candidates by name and named only Republicans. It

made no mention of Democrats or anyone running in non-partisan races.

The RJ now has a policy of referring only to Hoover Dam in all contexts.

This policy has been in effect for only about two years. (In the words

of one reporter friend, "due to the failed Clinton Administration, we

must use only 'Hoover Dam.'")

 Media watching here is interesting.

Cheers,

tlc