Analysis of CONELRAD

I chose this site (www.conelrad.com) because over the past few years, I have used its content to inform my research on the culture of the Cold War, and to exhibit the most prominent Cold War cultural forms to my students. The website spawned the production of a soundtrack entitled “Atomic Platters: Cold War Music From the Golden Age of Homeland Security,” which is now readily available for purchase via a direct link to Amazon, or as a podcast that can be downloaded directly. I use that soundtrack constantly to inform my research and teaching.

The site contains links to analysis of campaign ads, including Lyndon Johnson’s famous “Daisy” ad, anti-Communist propaganda, and over 100 films including Atomic Café, Duck and Cover, and The Day After. This analysis includes historical background of these cultural forms, information on who created them and for what purposes, and perhaps most importantly, how people perceived them. For example, the editors interviewed Ray Mauer, the writer of the film Duck and Cover. They asked Mauer provocative questions, including one inquiring about where the name of the film’s main character “Bert the Turtle” came from. By interviewing some of the people who helped to create these cultural forms, this website is also a valuable source of various oral histories.

The site is the ultimate “invented archive” for Cold War cultural historians and buffs alike. Self-described popular music historian Ken Sitz and cultural critic Bill Geerhart established it in 1999 in an effort to “share all the strangeness that this lengthy and tumultuous era produced.” It has turned into one of the most visually appealing, user-friendly website that I visit on a regular basis. Its graphics, while quite bold, are not bloated and are easily downloaded. There are no scaled images, and while there is quite a bit of text, it is easy to read and very well written. The fonts used are predominantly sans-serif, and menu links are clearly discernable on the left-hand side of every page, providing unity and cohesion. The site employs brilliantly clear images obtained from government and production house archives. The images are strategically placed next to the pertinent text that describes them, offering the user clear context on the image he/she is viewing. Most images are accompanied by red font captions that include the title (if there is one), the date the image or the film was produced, and information on who produced them. Because the site employs credible sources and has been endorsed by several prominent historians of Cold War culture, it easily passes Robert Harris’ “CARS” test.

Even though Sitz and Geerhart aren’t trained historians, they have utilized this site to build their understanding of Cold War culture, and to create an online community of people who are fascinated by films, advertisements, kitsch and other materials. According to historian Paul Boyer, the site effectively documents “the pervasive impact of nuclear weapons on American popular culture.” It is also a prime example of how non-historians can work their way into historiographical discussions at a time when cultural histories are all the rage. Undoubtedly, the site has a very wide range of visitors, including students of Cold War culture, teachers, history buffs, cultural critics and people eager to nostalgically relive their childhoods.

With all this in mind, I will now attempt to evaluate the site by utilizing the criteria set out by the Public History Resource Center (http://www.publichistory.org/reviews/rating_system.html). Unfortunately, there is no real way to “rate” a site, and this method is quite vague, but it does provide certain important criteria nonetheless.

The site easily gets 15 points for scope and content, because it clearly lays out the project’s intent and does what is says it will. It is very well-written and provides a variety of primary sources that a reader can interpret in whatever ways he/she wants to. It receives 15 points for the authority/bias criteria, because there is viable contact information present, the “about us” section outlines the perspectives from which the editors write, and there is full disclosure of sponsors. It gets 15 for the viability of its links (all of them work and connect to well-honed pages) and because the site is constantly updated with new cultural forms, vital insight and new media (including the recently added podcast). It gets 15 points because of its “value added features” because the site is extremely easy to navigate with clear indexes and an elaborate search engine, and it provides links to further information on a particular form, both internal and external. It is easily printable and navigable, giving it another 15 points for its technical aspects, and it should go without saying, but its “visual clarity and appeal” are good for another 15. Add another ten points for “overall impression” and this site receives a perfect score according to my evaluation based on the basic criteria outlined by the Public History Resource Center.

As far as the public history specific criteria, the site should probably receive about 35/40 points for its “interpretation of materials.” It meets, and indeed exceeds, most of the guidelines outlined by the PHRC, but could be strengthened by including critique and commentary from a wider variety of cultural critics and historians. The site receives 20 out of 20 possible points for its use of primary source documents, because it includes verifiable images, contains adequate citations and contains a statement verifying its proper adherence to copyright guidelines. As far as the “education” criteria, the site may be lacking available curriculum, and links to student work, but those are not the site’s objectives. As I mentioned earlier, this site has proven to be indispensable for the construction of my lesson plans, so it automatically gets 20 points regardless of the PHRC’s guidelines. Finally, because the site itself is a “community of interest, “ because it was spawned by a community of interest and has produced a very substantial email listserv, it should receive 20 points out of 20 possible for the final criterion, “promotion of a community of interest.” All in all, according to my analysis based upon PHRC guidelines (which, again, are quite vague), CONELRAD should receive 195 points out of 200 possible, making it a “five earth” site.