Welles vs. Hearst

First I would like to point out that the rivalry sparked by Welles’ production of Citizen Kane would never happen in today’s society. Hearst had more control over one industry and more influence in a media capital (Hollywood) than any one person can claim today. Too much has developed; there are too many “big names” in Hollywood now. No one man could put up a fight like Hearst did back in his day. Also, Welles would have a lot more protection today than he did back then. The industry today generally respects budding artists.
Other variables include methods of production. Would Welles be allowed to produce his film in the unconventional methods he used if he were to try it today? Would Hearst have the power to have absolute control over what was said about Welles in his papers? We also have to consider the influence of media. Film production today is a much more profitable and powerful industry than newspapers are. In Welles’ and Hearst’s day, newspaper had a lot of influence.
The scandal surrounding Citizen Kane is largely a matter of freedoms. We have freedom of speech and press in America. But our rights end where they offend someone else’s. So this is where we have to draw the line with slander and defamation. In light of this, I would say that the rivalry between Hearst and Welles was a completely ego based confrontation. The oversized egos of the persons involved can be seen in the first few dialogue lines of the "Battle Over Citizen Kane" transcript. Did Welles defame Hearst in his film, and did Hearst return the favor with his papers and social influence? That is the question at the heart of the “Battle over Citizen Kane”. That is where we have to look to find the “right” and “wrong” in this particular situation.