Posted on 11/26/2004 4:30:34 AM PST by risk
|
HARVARD GAZETTE ARCHIVES
On eve of Democratic National Convention,
|
|
|
| Before things get serious at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum, Peter Jennings makes a joke. Later in the day, the newscasters agree that they feel the pressure of responding to increasingly rapid news and messages churned out by well-organized interest groups. (Staff photo Stephanie Mitchell/Harvard News Office) |
The panel, sponsored by the KSG's Joan Shorenstein Center for Press, Politics and Public Policy and ably moderated by its director, Alex Jones, drew an audience of local and national journalists and other luminaries in Boston for the Democratic National Convention. Political coverage dominated the lively, often extremely candid discussion among the anchors.
As the campaign heats to a frenzy this week, the panelists agreed they feel the pressure of responding to increasingly rapid news and messages churned out by well-organized interest groups as well as instant media like Web sites and Web logs. They stood united in their philosophical tactics for countering political spin machines.
"Our job remains to be gatekeepers, to make sure that there is a kind of filter ... that we test for factual accuracy, what the motivation is, and put it in some kind of context," said Rather.
"I am never tempted to yell, 'Liar!' because that's not my function. My function is to press them," said Lehrer, adding that few political "lies" are black or white.
Brokaw noted that viewers must take in campaign coverage - like the campaigns themselves - with a long view. "Campaigns, especially, are about the continuity of coverage. It's not just about one broadcast, one night, and then we go on to other matters," he said.
The broadcasters agreed that the political polarization of the nation is sharply felt in their newsrooms as they strive to present perspectives that span the country. Jennings described an encounter with a fellow passenger on the plane to Boston who said to him, "America hater, leave the country." Putting together an upcoming special on the nation's divided viewpoints, said Brokaw, is "the hardest thing I've ever done."
But others saw positive effects from increasing polarization and hatred. "This is our business, to reflect varying views," said Lehrer. "The fact that they're strongly held is terrific from our point of view, because that means people are going to watch us with a little more vigor, a little more interest."
Rather described it as exerting positive pressure on good journalism. "It has made us at least a little bit more cautious," he said. "You never can afford to be wrong with the facts, but you'd better have the story in good context and good perspective."
The anchors were self-critical - although not always in agreement - on their coverage of the conventions, the 2000 and 2004 elections, and the war in Iraq.
When asked about how the television news programs would cover the 2004 election night results better than the 2000 election, Brokaw quipped, "We got rid of that coal-driven computer we had."
 |
| Tom Brokaw (left) shares the stage with C-Span videographer Darren Larade. During the panel discussion, Brokaw points out: 'Campaigns, especially, are about the continuity of coverage. It's not just about one broadcast, one night, and then we go on to other matters.' (Staff photo Stephanie Mitchell/Harvard News Office) |
"We all know that 2000 was a disaster for our business," said Woodruff, who, with the others, described a slower, more careful process in place to ensure this November's coverage avoids the confusion of the muddled coverage of 2000.
Looking over their journalistic shoulders to the run-up to the war in Iraq, the anchors discussed how they might have reported those now-contested events with greater clarity and accuracy.
"One of the things we could have done was ask more questions, with more follow-up questions, in an effort to get more direct answers," said Rather. "There is an assumption, and up to a point a valid one, that he [the president] knows things that we don't know."
Journalists, like the rest of the nation, were inclined to believe and respect the Bush administration's claim of the danger in Iraq, said Woodruff. "In the aftermath of 9/11, there was still this hyper-patriotic mood, or demeanor if you will, that still had taken
hold to some degree in the media," she said.
Coverage of the 2004 convention, which brought the anchors to Boston in the first place, divided the networks from their cable and public television colleagues. While Brokaw, Jennings, and Rather defended their networks' decisions to air three hours of convention coverage in prime time, Lehrer and Woodruff disagreed strongly (CNN and "The NewsHour" will air several hours of convention coverage each night).
"I think starting tomorrow, we're going to have four of the eight most important days we can possibly have as a nation. We're about to elect a president at a time when we have young people dying in our name overseas, we just had a report from the 9/11 Commission that says we are not safe as a nation, and one of these two groups of people is going to run our country," said Lehrer to the ABC, CBS, and NBC anchors. "You guys are a hell of a lot more important than your bosses are willing to admit."
ping
If the five of them took a vote on telling the truth, it would be 5-0 against.
Good find. Thanks.
I'm afraid they have themselves convinced that they're right and honest. You can just tell that Dan Rather thinks he knows the world so well that he didn't even bother thinking about the partisan origins of his memo. I think it is their producers and their sponsors who know they're lying and don't care. After all, they're making money for the networks, aren't they? And what about other, harder to track financial influences, such as from Saudi, French, German, and Chinese sources?
Said Dan, 44 days before "Rathergate".
Stunning, isn't it?
Dictionary.com should have their photo as the definition of "hubris".
Rather described it as exerting positive pressure on good journalism. "It has made us at least a little bit more cautious," he said. "You never can afford to be wrong with the facts, but you'd better have the story in good context and good perspective."
_____________________________________________________________
This is like a comedy routine. These people have to be from
another planet. My only question is, where is the mother ship?
They proved that they could not outthink the average American nor convince him/her that they can--even armed, as they were, with the most powerful propaganda machine in history and an unyielding conviction of their own importance and superior vantage point.
Thank God, also, for the internet--the newspaper of record--which has already recorded the truth about them--much to their horror.
The mother ship is at New York Times Square.
The group photo says it all. When they do their shows at night they are directing their message to the other four without regard for objectivity...
Hell, it should be the new cover for "Imperial Hubris!"
Fast on the flight to irrelevancy.
Certainly is. I remember seeing parts of this on C-SPAM.
A more self-important group of poobahs you couldn't find.
Former NYT 'journalist' Jason Blayre would be eminently qualified to succeed any one of them
.
I actually like Lehrer, believe it or not. Compared to the rest of them, the News Hour is a lot more balanced. It's obviously liberal, but rarely do you get untruths on it.
I am quite sure he knew darned good and well that the memos were forgeries. Dan Rather has always been in the business of deceiving and manipulating his audience (as have the others). The forged TANG memos just happened to be a more flagrant abuse of the truth than usual.
After listening to him for 17 years or whatever, I think he's perfectly stupid enough to believe in his own model of the world so devoutly that he could do such things without intending to mislead anyone.
But you also may be right. What's worse, the guy might be doing all this for Oil for Food money in some anonymous Swiss bank account.
He's already got a lot of money. If he buys his own island, we can start checking his finances.
But you didn't Dan nor did any of the rest of you liberal characters. You tried hard to squelch- the Swift Boat Vets rather than listen to them tell the truth; you never questioned Kerry about Noriega but the late Barry Goldwater did; you didn't question Kerry about his trip to Paris which was a re-run of his trip to Guatemala, i.e., circumventing his government and ripping the US Constitution. Kerry was your pick so you tried to cram that arrogant fraud down our throats - Americans recognize a fraud so don't try this with Ms. Clinton, another fraud.
The election was more about honesty than the oft touted religion; it was more about a party that for ten years let one act of war after another happen to this country and you did nothing until Bush won the election then you started blaming him for everything. The 9/11 Commission did little to put the blame where it belonged – on Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright. You All, are still telling us how great these sorry people are.
Again…don’t try this with Ms. Clinton…we already know who she is and she ain’t a centrist or moderate, she is still the activist and still believes in the Third Way and has never changed her deep dislike of the Military.
I've never understood why Judy W. is ever taken seriously.........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
