Politics vs News Reporting

[Richard]

An excellent view of the pitfalls of such a relationship based on a personal experience between then-Senator Bobby Kennedy and CBS Anchorman Walter Cronkite.

Richard's $.02

Pitfalls of an Anchorman
Walter Cronkite, 1990

Two situations appalled me when I sat in the anchor chair. For one, there were those who would come up to me on the street and say:

"Oh, I believe every word you say."

I wanted to shake them and point out that our daily box score showed hits, runs and errors.

Equally appalling were the number of people who urged me to run for public office, for everything from mayor to President. (Dog-catcher never was mentioned.)

I have stood on a long-held principle in refusing even to entertain the idea of running for office. Should one who has achieved national fame as a presumably impartial news person ever run, the public is going to have every reason to question whether that person had been tailoring the news to build a political platform. The burden of credibility is already heavy enough without that extra load.

I tried to explain that to Bobby Kennedy, who was then a Senator from New York, in 1968. I had just returned from Vietnam and the controversial broadcast in which I stepped out of my normal role and, clearly identifying the material as editorial opinion, suggested that we should seek an honorable peace and get out.

Kennedy called me down to his Senate office to have lunch, just the two of us. He wanted to hear more about Vietnam but it turned out he had something else in mind. At that moment he was considering whether to run for the Democratic nomination against the incumbent, President Lyndon Johnson.

After hearing his strong views on Vietnam, which happened to coincide with my own, I fell into a trap which always lies there for the unwary newsman who succumbs to the heady narcotic of being on the inside. I became a player rather than observer.

"If you feel so strongly on the subject," I said, "it seems to me you certainly ought to run for the Presidency."

"Give me three reasons why I should run," he challenged, "and I'll give you three why I shouldn't." We discussed Vietnam a little longer and then he changed the subject.

"You don't vote in New York, do you?" he said. I said that I did.

"But then you are not registered as a Democrat." Apparently he had been checking the registration rolls.

I told him I was an independent both by registration and inclination.

"Well, that doesn't matter," he said. "I want you to run for the Senate in New York."

I thought my answer was very clever. "Give me three reasons why I should and I'll give you three why I shouldn't." Then I told him why I would never be a candidate.

I went back to CBS's Washington bureau to get ready for that evening's broadcast only to find that Roger Mudd, then a correspondent for the network, was preparing a story on the Kennedy clan and advisers gathering for a weekend conclave to decide whether or not Bobby should run.

Our luncheon conversations had been strictly off the record and I needed to explain to the Senator that the story had been developed independently by Roger Mudd with no input from me. But I also saw the opportunity to ask him for a comment on the report.

Kennedy was on the floor of the Senate but his assistant, Frank Mankiewicz, a little miffed, I think, because he wasn't in on the lunch, promised to take my request to him.

Frank called back a few minutes later.

"I don't know what this is about," he said, "but the Senator gave me a message to give to you and said you could use it only if you used it in full."

"The message is: 'I am thinking of running for the Presidency even as Walter Cronkite is considering running for the Senate in New York.' "

A few days later I was to learn again the dangers of a newsman trifling even ever so innocently in the complicated game of politics.

Dr. Frank Stanton, the president of CBS, called me to his office and sternly faced me down with a serious complaint from President Johnson that I was urging Kennedy to run against him. So much for our off-the-record luncheon.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/18opclassic.html

[Utah Bob]

Helluva guy, Uncle Walter.

[6.8SPC_DUMP]

Thanks for posting this Sir. I wasn't familiar with Mr. Cronkite's work and it was refreshing to hear a reporter say things like:

"I wanted to shake them and point out that our daily box score showed hits, runs and errors."

and,

"Should one who has achieved national fame as a presumably impartial news person ever run, the public is going to have every reason to question whether that person had been tailoring the news to build a political platform. The burden of credibility is already heavy enough without that extra load."

I feel in some ways that Tim Russert was our last great interview reporter.
(ETA: out of the non-retired interviewers of politicians on TV, because he held them accountable for so many past statements, didn't let them wiggle out of a question easily, was unbiased and non-argumentative IMVHO)

I bet Mr. Cronkite had a lot more to say about LBJ and Bobby Kennedy's relationship.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by 6.8SPC_DUMP

I feel in some ways that Tim Russert was our last great interview reporter.

You have got to be shitting me.

TR

[WRMETTLER]

Before the 1980s, there were about 5 main sources of news; theNYTimes, WashPost, CBS, NBC and maybe Time and Newsweek. No one watched ABC.
These news sources defined the “mainstream” thought in the United States.

Any dispute with these sources was labeled “extreme” or even “radical”. These news sources pursued certain constant themes, such as JFK was a saint, Eugene McCarthy was not only a saint, but a genius, Nixon was evil, Carter was good, the war bad, Reagan not only stupid, but senile. Even if anyone had tried to contradict these themes, they would not have been given the voice in the mainstream media to publish any fair reporting.

As a result, the public was never given a fair analysis of the news. No fair reporting was ever done on the failure of the Tet Offensive, Carter’s economic failures, JFK’s support of the war, what created the Cuba missile crises (JFKs perceived weakness), Nixon’s good legislation, Reagan’s foreign policy, and the list goes on. Public opinion was molded only on what was reported. It was a testament to the really stupid positions and failures of the media that conservative (perhaps mainstream and/or normal) politicians were elected.

Walter Cronkite read news. We have no idea who wrote for him. His credibility was established because of his history as a radio reporter during WWII, his voice and maybe the Dick VanDyke Show establishing his audience. He represented this old system and its failures. Ask yourself if Walter would have allowed anyone to have contradicted Dan Rather’s reporting on W’s alleged war record or allowed Newt Gingrich access to the public airways after he left congress under an alleged cloud. I bet Walter would have allowed Rather’s reporting to establish W’s history.

I miss Walter only because I miss sitting with my mom and dad to watch him. I don’t miss what he stood for.

As to Russert, he might have been the present day Cronkite; Pursuing an agenda while seeming to be aggressive news-hound.

[ZooKeeper]

Originally Posted by WRMETTLER

As to Russert, he might have been the present day Cronkite; Pursuing an agenda while seeming to be aggressive news-hound.

What agenda is that?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by WRMETTLER

Before the 1980s, there were about 5 main sources of news; theNYTimes, WashPost, CBS, NBC and maybe Time and Newsweek. No one watched ABC.
These news sources defined the “mainstream” thought in the United States.

Any dispute with these sources was labeled “extreme” or even “radical”. These news sources pursued certain constant themes, such as JFK was a saint, Eugene McCarthy was not only a saint, but a genius, Nixon was evil, Carter was good, the war bad, Reagan not only stupid, but senile. Even if anyone had tried to contradict these themes, they would not have been given the voice in the mainstream media to publish any fair reporting.

As a result, the public was never given a fair analysis of the news. No fair reporting was ever done on the failure of the Tet Offensive, Carter’s economic failures, JFK’s support of the war, what created the Cuba missile crises (JFKs perceived weakness), Nixon’s good legislation, Reagan’s foreign policy, and the list goes on. Public opinion was molded only on what was reported. It was a testament to the really stupid positions and failures of the media that conservative (perhaps mainstream and/or normal) politicians were elected.

Walter Cronkite read news. We have no idea who wrote for him. His credibility was established because of his history as a radio reporter during WWII, his voice and maybe the Dick VanDyke Show establishing his audience. He represented this old system and its failures. Ask yourself if Walter would have allowed anyone to have contradicted Dan Rather’s reporting on W’s alleged war record or allowed Newt Gingrich access to the public airways after he left congress under an alleged cloud. I bet Walter would have allowed Rather’s reporting to establish W’s history.

I miss Walter only because I miss sitting with my mom and dad to watch him. I don’t miss what he stood for.

As to Russert, he might have been the present day Cronkite; Pursuing an agenda while seeming to be aggressive news-hound.

With respect, I do not agree with your thumbnail sketch of the history of journalism and your generalizations on its impact on American public opinion. Nor do I agree with your conclusion that Americans did not have access to a 'fair analysis' of the events of the day.

"Before the 1980s" is a long time. IIRC, there were a number of wire services, broadsheets and magazines that Americans used as news sources. A partial list includes:

The Associated Press
United Press International
The Atlanta-Journal Constitution
The Los Angeles Times
The San Francisco Chronicle (and other outlets owned by the Hearst Corporation)
The New York Post
The Christian Science Monitor
The Chicago Tribune
The Wall Street Journal
The Economist
The Houston Chronicle
The Negro World
Harper's
The New Yorker
The Atlantic

Your analysis that the American public opinion was molded by a handful of sources is tenable only if one denies entirely the existence of these (and other) news sources. Moreover, this view requires one to discount the ability of Americans to read, to think, to discuss, and to decide for themselves the credibility of an article or an editorial. Your interpretation of the formation of public opinion as a "top down" dynamic in which elites shape the views of the rank and file is equally problematic.

Bluntly, your view is a mirror image of an interpretation of American history offered by historians including William Appleman Williams, Walter LaFeber, and, most recently, Walter L. Hixson.

[Box]

Russert, Cronkite, and all the rest of them at the end of the day are little more than entertainers under the shroud of 'reporting the news'...
...if they didn't get ratings the network would put them in the street. The most telling part of the story: "...So much for our off-the-record luncheon"
Did he really think there was such thing as "off the record"
...sucks to get misquoted dont it,

News media is never more than a shallow breath away from "Weekend Update" so I would rather morn the loss of an unknown US serviceman than a well known news "reporter."

just my two cents

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

With respect, I do not agree with your thumbnail sketch of the history of journalism and your generalizations on its impact on American public opinion. nor your conclusion that Ameicans did not have access to a 'fair analysis' of the events of the day.

"Before the 1980s" is a long time. IIRC, there were a number of wire services, broadsheets and magazines that Americans used as news sources. A partial list includes:

The Associated Press
United Press International
The Atlanta-Journal Constitution
The Los Angeles Times
The San Francisco Chronicle (and other outlets owned by the Hearst Corporation)
The New York Post
The Christian Science Monitor
The Chicago Tribune
The Wall Street Journal
The Economist
The Houston Chronicle
The Negro World
Harper's
The New Yorker
The Atlantic

Your analysis that the American public opinion was molded by a handful of sources is tenable only if one denies entirely the existence of these (and other) news sources. Moreover, this view requires one to discount the ability of Americans to read, to think, to discuss, and to decide for themselves the credibility of an article or an editorial. Your interpretation of the formation of public opinion as a "top down" dynamic in which elites shape the views of the rank and file is equally problematic.

Bluntly, your view is a mirror image of an interpretation of American history offered by historians including William Appleman Williams, Walter LaFeber, and, most recently, Walter L. Hixson.

I agree with WRMETTLER... And how many of these media outlets were at the fingertips of the average American? How many big city newspapers or tv networks does the joe public watch? There's not many Americans I know that went to their local library to read from six different sources.

I am glad we have the internet and unrestricted access to news on a global basis. I'm also happy the internet is putting some of the crappy newspapers like the NYT and LA Times out of business. I'm sick of extreme left wing media.

TS

[Richard]

1. I think most would be surprised to go back and actually read the variety and veracity - yes, veracity - and errors, too - of the news reporting which was posted rather than the commonly held beliefs that it was so unbalanced as to be of little to no benefit except as a propaganda tool of ( insert personal belief group title here ) - I was doing research on several issues at Indiana University before posting to the AmEmbassy-Bonn in 1990 and was surprised in finding it very different from what I had thought it to have been.

2. Personally, I agree with the wisdom and vision of Thomas Jefferson:

A German visitor to the White House saw there a newspaper full of abuse of President Jefferson, and asked why the President did not have the fellow who wrote it hanged. "What? Hang the guardian of the public morals?" asked Jefferson. "Put that paper into your pocket, my good friend," he told the visitor, "and carry it with you to Europe, and when you hear anyone doubt the reality of American freedom, show them that newspaper, and tell them where you found it."

C.L. Taylor, Censorship, NY: Franklin Watts, 1986.

Richard's $.02