Wednesday, October 03, 2007

The State of American Media: 'Wires and Lights in a Box'

Edward R. Murrow became famous throughout America during World War II. His rooftop radio broadcasts from London painted a vivid picture of the Blitz in a pre-television era. Most certainly, his words made a longer lasting impression than even video from Viet Nam.

Murrow was hardly unbiased. He was, rather, a champion of America's lost ideals: individual liberties and rights, truth, free speech, citizen participation. No one doubts that Murrow felt those ideals threatened by the menace of the Third Reich. Amidst war and, later, the un-easy peace, his clear headed idealism, his refusal to compromise facts and history made naive notions about mere objectivity sound like empty platitudes. Indeed, most such notions remain poor substitutes for courageous reporting and informed challenges to power.

Later, Murrow would feel similarly threatened when our own right wing attacked freedom of speech and free inquiry. It was the McCarthy era, an era not unlike our own —seemingly dominated by those who fear dissent, free speech, open debate --the institutions of a free and Democratic society. Murrow reacted to McCarthy's threats of surreptitious investigations and attacks on free speech as if they were themselves Nazi bombs that he had described so vividly from the flaming rooftops of London.


How Murrow Brought Down a Right Wing Demagogue


Ed Murrow is still with us. His legacy embodies the very finest that might be found in Western democracies. Unlike our present "leaders" who have exploited and debased the term, Murrow made of Democracy an ideal! By contrast, the enemies of Democracy today exploit the phantom menace of terrorism, just as McCarthy had exploited the specter of communism.


Keith Olbermann: A Short History of Phony Terror and Bush Admin "Fear Mongering"

Bush learned much from McCarthy. The "war on terror" is simply McCarthyism on steroids. A real war on terrorism has yet to be fought. As far as anyone knows, Bush has never captured or brought to justice a single terrorist. Name one! Nevertheless, Bush has managed to terrorize the American people with color codes, phony tapes, and staged terror plots --none of which were proven to have been substantial. Bush's war on terrorism is a deliberate, calculated fraud, a hoax perpetrated by liars and war criminals.

With a few notable exceptions --Bill Moyers, Keith Olbermann come to mind --the American media has failed its public. We expected no better from Fox. It is CBS, the network of Ed Murrow, that has been most disappointing. As the fraudulent nature of Bush's administration crumbles, it had been hoped that the American media would take a cue from one of its pioneers. The standard Murrow set is yet to be lived up to.

It is my hope that one day, and soon, the American media will awaken to a simple fact that without the public they serve, they would not exist. In that spirit, I post Murrow's very words, excerpts from his prophetic speech to a meeting of the Radio and Television News Director's Association Convention in Chicago. It's as true today as it was on October 15, 1958.

Edward R. Murrow's address to the RTNDA Convention in Chicago, October 15, 1958

This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television.

I have no technical advice or counsel to offer those of you who labor in this vineyard that produces words and pictures. You will forgive me for not telling you that instruments with which you work are miraculous, that your responsibility is unprecedented or that your aspirations are frequently frustrated. It is not necessary to remind you that the fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other. All of these things you know.

You should also know at the outset that, in the manner of witnesses before congressional committees, I appear here voluntarily-by invitation-that I am an employee of the Columbia Broadcasting System, that I am neither an officer nor a director of that corporation and that these remarks are of a "do-it-yourself" nature. If what I have to say is responsible, then I alone am responsible for the saying of it. Seeking neither approbation from my employers, nor new sponsors, nor acclaim from the critics of radio and television, I cannot well be disappointed. Believing that potentially the commercial system of broadcasting as practiced in this country is the best and freest yet devised, I have decided to express my concern about what I believe to be happening to radio and television. These instruments have been good to me beyond my due. There exists in mind no reasonable grounds for personal complaint. I have no feud, either with my employers, any sponsors, or with the professional critics of radio and television. But I am seized with an abiding fear regarding what these two instruments are doing to our society, our culture and our heritage.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 PM, Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done--and are still doing--to the Indians in this country. ... I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate....

Our experience was similar with two half-hour programs dealing with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Both the medical profession and the tobacco industry cooperated in a rather wary fashion. But in the end of the day they were both reasonably content. The subject of radioactive fall-out and the banning of nuclear tests was, and is, highly controversial. But according to what little evidence there is, viewers were prepared to listen to both sides with reason and restraint. This is not said to claim any special or unusual competence in the presentation of controversial subjects, but rather to indicate that timidity in these areas is not warranted by the evidence. ...

Nowhere is this better illustrated than by the fact that the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission publicly prods broadcasters to engage in their legal right to editorialize. Of course, to undertake an editorial policy, overt and clearly labeled, and obviously unsponsored, requires a station or a network to be responsible. Most stations today probably do not have the manpower to assume this responsibility, but the manpower could be recruited. Editorials would not be profitable; if they had a cutting edge, they might even offend. It is much easier, much less troublesome, to use the money-making machine of television and radio merely as a conduit through which to channel anything that is not libelous, obscene or defamatory. In that way one has the illusion of power without responsibility.

... when John Foster Dulles, by personal decree, banned American journalists from going to Communist China, and subsequently offered contradictory explanations, for his fiat the networks entered only a mild protest. Then they apparently forgot the unpleasantness. Can it be that this national industry is content to serve the public interest only with the trickle of news that comes out of Hong Kong, to leave its viewers in ignorance of the cataclysmic changes that are occurring in a nation of six hundred million people? ...

I have no illusions about the difficulties reporting from a dictatorship, but our British and French allies have been better served--in their public interest--with some very useful information from their reporters in Communist China. One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the corporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs.

Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this. It is not easy for the same small group of men to decide whether to buy a new station for millions of dollars, build a new building, alter the rate card, buy a new Western, sell a soap opera, decide what defensive line to take in connection with the latest Congressional inquiry, how much money to spend on promoting a new program, what additions or deletions should be made in the existing covey or clutch of vice-presidents, and at the same time-- frequently on the same long day--to give mature, thoughtful consideration to the manifold problems that confront those who are charged with the responsibility for news and public affairs.

Sometimes there is a clash between the public interest and the corporate interest. A telephone call or a letter from the proper quarter in Washington is treated rather more seriously than a communication from an irate but not politically potent viewer. It is tempting enough to give away a little air time for frequently irresponsible and unwarranted utterances in an effort to temper the wind of criticism .Upon occasion, economics and editorial judgment are in conflict. And there is no law which says that dollars will be defeated by duty. ...

There is no suggestion here that networks or individual stations should operate as philanthropies. But I can find nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Communications Act which says that they must increase their net profits each year, lest the Republic collapse. I do not suggest that news and information should be subsidized by foundations or private subscriptions. I am aware that the networks have expended, and are expending, very considerable sums of money on public affairs programs from which they cannot hope to receive any financial reward. I have had the privilege at CBS of presiding over a considerable number of such programs. I testify, and am able to stand here and say, that I have never had a program turned down by my superiors because of the money it would cost. But we all know that you cannot reach the potential maximum audience in marginal time with a sustaining program.

This is so because so many stations on the network--any network--will decline to carry it. Every licensee who applies for a grant to operate in the public interest, convenience and necessity makes certain promises as to what he will do in terms of program content. Many recipients of licenses have, in blunt language, welshed on those promises. The money-making machine somehow blunts their memories. The only remedy for this is closer inspection and punitive action by the FCC ...

What, then, is the answer? Do we merely stay in our comfortable nests, concluding that the obligation of these instruments has been discharged when we work at the job of informing the public for a minimum of time? Or do we believe that the preservation of the Republic is a seven-day-a-week job, demanding more awareness, better skills and more perseverance than we have yet contemplated. ...

So the question is this: Are the big corporations who pay the freight for radio and television programs wise to use that time exclusively for the sale of goods and services? Is it in their own interest and that of the stockholders so to do? The sponsor of an hour's television program is not buying merely the six minutes devoted to commercial message. He is determining, within broad limits, the sum total of the impact of the entire hour. If he always, invariably, reaches for the largest possible audience, then this process of insulation, of escape from reality, will continue to be massively financed, and its apologist will continue to make winsome speeches about giving the public what it wants, or "letting the public decide." ...

To a very considerable extent the media of mass communications in a given country reflect the political, economic and social climate in which they flourish. That is the reason ours differ from the British and French, or the Russian and Chinese. We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this. But unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late .I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. ...

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us. We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small traction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure would grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure--exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation. To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful. Stonewall Jackson, who knew something about the use of weapons, is reported to have said, "When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival.
Good night, and good luck!


Straithorn as Murrow in "Good Night and Good Luck"


Additional resources








Why Conservatives Hate America




Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

9 comments:

Linda-Sama said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Linda-Sama said...

your latest posts are brilliant, as usual. but I gotta tell ya, Len -- besides that Molly Ivins still is my fave columnist (http://lindasyoga.blogspot.com/2007/02/think-
outside-box.html) -- but I get depressed when I read your posts! Like when I can't watch anything anymore on the environment, because I get too depressed about it.

don't get me wrong, I love your posts. but I feel so helpless against the current regime.

why aren't we reading YOUR stuff in the paper and why aren't YOU going up against Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter on TV blowing holes in their arguments? I want to see you on Bill Maher's show...

keep up the good work!

Diane B said...

Edward R.Murrow, saw it coming and he is right about the 1950's. I had my childhood and preteen years during that era.

The family revolved around TV, it made the world turn and lord knows it wasn't news. I'm going from memory but I believe it was 15 minutes Monday thru Friday, lord only knows there wasn't suppose to be any news on weekends.

During the week, stay at home Mom's watched their soap operas and at night as Ed Murrow said, it became all about Indians, and the hero well of course that was the Cowboy!

There were not any news shows, these were suppose to be the carefree days of the 1950's. But, we know better then that, of course there were families, many families as today, that did not own a car, or take family vacations, that barely had food to eat and for TV, they certainly didn't have that luxury. You know, I new a family like that, quite well!

SadButTrue said...

The title of this post brought an image immediately to mind of Blitzer and the rest of the Corporate Owned Media's hire meatpuppets - all with strings leading up off the frame, into the hands of their producers, boardrooms, and shareholders.

There was a time when journalism and integrity could be connected terms. Outside of Keith Olbermann and Bill Moyers it's seldom seen any more, at least in the 'mainstream' outlets viewed by the majority.

SadButTrue said...

hired meatpuppets.

David B. Dancy said...

Great post...I was watching the evening news two nights ago- it is something I might do twice ayear tops- the top story on cbs and nbc was the recors missing luggage between July and September. Obviously our government needs an excuse to go through our suitcases.Just imagine big brother doing a spot check on our underwear. The military congressional industrial complex has reached the acme of power and control.Thye genral populace has been dumbed down to a point of malleability that absolutely terrifies me.
What the hell is next

Unknown said...

Linda (Sama) said...

why aren't we reading YOUR stuff in the paper and why aren't YOU going up against Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter on TV blowing holes in their arguments? I want to see you on Bill Maher's show...

I think I made some "consultants" mad at me once. : ) As Randolph Churchill said of politics, broadcasting is a "greasy pole". In retrospect, I might have done precisely as you describe. Indeed, on several occassions I had "hob nobbed" with some names you might recognize. Dan Rather, Sam Donaldson, Phil Jones among them. At the time, however, it was not what I wanted and I took, by choice, another path and, it was equally rewarding if less noticeable. Having said that, some things come full circle. As I am close to wrapping up a busy year, syndicated radio may be in the works. As they say "Stay tuned" or better: "Good Night and Good Luck!"

Diane B said...

During the week, stay at home Mom's watched their soap operas and at night as Ed Murrow said, it became all about Indians, and the hero well of course that was the Cowboy!

But even the "Cowboys" were better then. I remember "Gunsmoke" and, recently, some old re-runs of that show on cable. I had forgotten how well crafted those scripts were. When I was about ten or twelve, I saw "You are There" with Walter Cronkite. It was a fantastic program in which seasoned news gusy like Cronkite described historical events as if they were developing news stories. Cronkite, himself, "covered" the burning of Jeanne d'Arc. It was like having a time machine and it awakened my life long love of history.

SadButTrue said...

There was a time when journalism and integrity could be connected terms. Outside of Keith Olbermann and Bill Moyers it's seldom seen any more, at least in the 'mainstream' outlets viewed by the majority.

Moyers should be given a medal AND an emmy. Olbermann has shown incredible promise. It will be interesting to see what he is doing in 20 years. I wish him well.

David B. Dancy said...

The military congressional industrial complex has reached the acme of power and control.The genral populace has been dumbed down to a point of malleability that absolutely terrifies me.
What the hell is next


Both Congress and courts have all but done themselves out of a job. Bush v Gore may be the last SCOTUS decision ever heeded by Bush. I am quite sure that Bush is --as we post here --in violation of Hamden v Rumsfeld. As, if he is, who's gonna do anything about it? Who will force a rogue "President" to obey the law.

Unknown said...

Syndicated radio???That would be great!

Keep sounding the alarms and fighting the goods fight. We need you and many more like you.

Unknown said...

Hey Yogi...we are probably gonna need some music. We premiered in the Spokane market last weekend...and the second show should have run on Saturday. I am doing all the post as well as co-anchoring and trying to keep up with Bush's anti-American antics. Whew!!! If things go as planned, we'll need to talk.

Hang in there, yourself, my friend. We are gonna win!