Yesterday marked the 40th anniversary of a unique political speech. On November 13, 1969, Vice President Spiro Agnew questioned the network news divisions' domination of the political debate, and the "narrow and distorted picture of America [that] often emerges from the television news."
Despite the very different times we lieve in today compared to the Old Media days of the late 1960s -- a time when the Big Three were a very dominant force in determining what Americans saw and discussed -- much of what Agnew said then remains a compelling critique of TV news today:
Setting the Agenda: "We cannot measure this power and influence by traditional democratic standards. They can make or break -- by their coverage and commentary -- a moratorium on the war. They can elevate men from local obscurity to national prominence within a week. They can reward some politicians with national exposure and ignore others. For millions of Americans, the network reporter who covers a continuing issue, like ABM or civil rights, becomes in effect, the presiding judge in a national trial by jury."
A Unanimous Eastern Elite: "We do know that, to a man, these commentators and producers live and work in the geographic and political confines of Washington D.C. or New York City -- the latter of which James Reston terms the 'most unrepresentative community in the entire United States.' Both communities bask in their own provincialism, their own parochialism. We can deduce that these men thus read the same newspapers, and draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement ot their own viewpoints."
Attack Journalism: "Less than a week before the 1968 election, [ABC's Frank Reynolds] charged that President Nixon's campaign commitments were no more durable than campaign balloons. He claimed, were it not for fear of a hostile reaction, Richard Nixon would be giving into, and I quote the commentator, 'his natural instinct to smash the enemy with a club or go after him with a meat-axe.'
Had this slander been made by one political candidate about another, it would have been dismissed by most commentators as a partisan assault. But this attack emanated from the privileged sanctuary of a network studio and therefore had the apparent dignity of an objective statement."
Campaign Reform: "We have heard demands that Senators and Congressmen and Judges make known their financial connections -- so that the public will know who and what influences their decisions or votes. Strong arguments can be made for that view. But when a single commentator or producer, night after night, determines for millions of people how much of each side of a great issue they are going to see and hear, should he not first disclose his personal views on the issue as well?"
Unmet Challenges: Agnew challenged the media "to turn their critical powers on themselves. They are challenged to direct their energy, talent, and conviction toward improving the quality and objectivity of news presentation....And the people of America are challenged too....This is one case where the people must defend themselves, where the citizen -- not the government -- must be the reformer, where the consumer can be the most effective crusader."
He ended: "We would never trust such powers, I've described, over public opinion in the hands of an elected government. It is time we questioned it in the hands of a small and unelected elite. The great networks have dominated America's airwaves for decades. The people are entitled to a full accounting of their stewardship."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
And forty years ago, when
November 14, 2009 - 07:57 ET by motherbeltAnd forty years ago, when Spiro Agnew was found to have a "tax" problem when he was a Governor, he was forced to resign.....
Those were the days.....
If was a 'tax' problem
November 14, 2009 - 08:09 ET by CO2Maker... only if you call accepting bribes in brown paper bags in your VP office "tax." Remember, the distance between Annapolis and the Executive Office Building is measured in cab fare.
I stand corrected....I had
November 14, 2009 - 08:14 ET by motherbeltI stand corrected....I had forgotten that it was bribes too.
The old CRS kicking in.....
But wasn't he only convicted of the tax thing?
Not making excuses for him; just clarifying; wondering if that's why I only remembered that part.
Was that the "nattering nabobs of negativism" speech?
November 14, 2009 - 08:08 ET by CO2MakerIf so, I believe Peggy Noonan wrote it!
I was a long-haired liberal college student then and didn't want to hear it from this goofy looking second banana in an administration I thought was loathsome. Times have changed!
Much of what Agnew said, repeated above, is almost clichéd now, but pay attention to this: "When a single commentator or producer, night after night, determines for millions of people how much of each side of a great issue they are going to see and hear, should he not first disclose his personal views on the issue as well?"
That is very astute. "Qui custodiet ipso custodes?" Or in this case, who questions the questioners. Who measures the factors that might slant their views? The only persons I remember in recent years who were scrutinized that way were Gwen Ifil (moderating the VP debate while her book about Obama was in final stages of being published) and Sam Donaldson (who argued against farm subsidies but accepted them for his sheep ranch in NM, on the argument that he needed the money to remain competitive with other ranchers).
William Safire wrote the
November 14, 2009 - 08:32 ET by Red JeepWilliam Safire wrote the "nattering nabobs..." speech given by Agnew in San Diego on September 11, 1970.
"In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H Club -- the "hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history."
Right, Safire not Noonan
November 14, 2009 - 08:50 ET by CO2MakerThanks for the update
Remembering---
November 14, 2009 - 11:32 ET by matthewdeanRJ:
Just happened to notice the 9-11-70 date.
Odd how that date, 9-11, also represents our emergency number.
MD
"There is no distinctly American criminal class - except Congress."
Mark Twain (1835-1910)
Wow. Interesting.
November 14, 2009 - 11:42 ET by Red JeepWow. Interesting.
Here's another one
November 14, 2009 - 13:04 ET by CO2MakerThe Berlin Wall fell on November 9, 11/9 to us, but it is written in Europe as 9/11.
And what's amazing even
November 14, 2009 - 08:27 ET by MidAmericaAnd what's amazing even though Republicans were always at a disadvantage back then they were able to put forward some strong and forceful leaders. Now with the absolute power of the networks nearly neutralized the Republicans want to put up candidates who are willingly submitting to the liberal press for acceptance. The Tea Parties are a good example of the disconnect between the mass of ordinary people and the people who claim to represent the issues important for these newly politicized citizens. The Tea Parties represent a huge dissatisfaction about the direction of the country but both parties see them as a distraction compicating their jobs of 'governing' us.
Think what you will about Nixon and Agnew but they spoke their minds, stood up to the media and won huge election victories because they spoke for a lot of people who had no voice.
The premise that we need reach across the isle big tent RINO's is a losing combination.
Nixon and Agnew
November 14, 2009 - 08:50 ET by CO2Makerfollowed an almost inarticulate Texan, a known tough-dealer in Congress but one who shouldn't have been president at all, because Kennedy had been killed.
And Kennedy—the pre-Obama—was handsome, extremely articulate and witty, and had a beautiful wife. Remember, Kennedy followed Eisnehower, a dull personality with an even duller wife. Nixon, by contrast, was perceived to be not so much dull or inarticulate as profoundly socially awkward in public. Add to that, he was a very tough politician, who lost to President Camelot. Why was he now president in 1970 and Kennedy dead?
But beyond that, the press that confronted the politicians were composed of the tough cadre whose skills were honed in WWII and by their first-growth proteges, and they all were inventing TV news on the fly back in the 50s and 60s.
Today's TV news coverers are products of schools of journalism, which I suspect are to journalism as schools of education are to education: places to learn both good stuff and bad methods or techniques ... and focus on the bad stuff first.
There was Howard K. Smith—not Harry fer cryin' out loud Smith—and Sander Vanocur and Eric Sevareid, and a host of others. That group most certainly did not include a former sports reporter as a political commentator, nor, IIRC, a former aide to several members of Congress recycled as a national reporter for a local newspaper turned Joe Pyne-style polemicist.
The change in TV news coveage was signaled in the early 70s by the appointing of Roone Arledge as president of ABC News and Sports. Most commentators then saw that as the moment the spacecraft called reporting left the gravitational field of News and entered the gravitational field of Entertainment.
Since the news was
November 14, 2009 - 09:58 ET by ahusserdefined by the big 3 networks and there were not many avenues of differing opinion ( a few newspapers not in the lib/dem fold.) We "masses" were spoon fed the news and didn't know any different. Now the internet and talk radio are the only avenue for finding another view as even with the proliferation of channels and news on satellite and cable the viewpoint is still homogenously leftist.
It wasn't until the Vietnam War when the true colors of TV newscasters were revealed just as the election of Obama brought the extreme leftist views of some TV networks, TV newscasters, their editors and producers out of the closet (again). Vietnam Veterans are still stained by the slander and outright lies that came from those 'balanced' newscasters in that era. Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather come to mind instantly.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Back in the day of
November 14, 2009 - 10:04 ET by MidAmericaBack in the day of network domination the content of news was so similar that the only defining difference was the viewers preference of anchor. In other words, the networks marketed the packaging and not the product.
It was their 'Golden Age'
November 14, 2009 - 10:18 ET by ahusserWe pretty much believed everything they told us. It wasn't until I came back from Viet Nam that I could actually see (and feel) the bias. And BTW the news, pre-dominantly anti-war, in effect fed the anti war movement like warm water feeds a hurricane. The result was if not the creation of the mostly leftist counter culture but its nurture to the extent that our government now is controlled by its remnants. This anti-government and anti-war stance at the time had a terrible and tremendous effect on the morale of the troops to their hazard and detriment.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Excellent writing, my friend.
November 14, 2009 - 09:58 ET by nolotrippenYou should be a speech writer -- for a Republican.
“It is almost impossible to distinguish a politician from a gangster.” (Will Durant, 1931)
Read the whole speech.
November 14, 2009 - 08:52 ET by Red JeepClick on the red November 13, 1969 to go to a text of this speech. It is as relevant today as it was then. Maybe even more relevant today.
"When Winston Churchill rallied public opinion to stay the course
against Hitler’s Germany, he didn’t have to contend with a gaggle of
commentators raising doubts about whether he was reading public opinion right, or whether
Britain had the stamina to see the war through. When President Kennedy rallied the nation
in the Cuban missle crisis, his address to the people was not chewed over by a roundtable
of critics who disparaged the course of action he’d asked America to follow.
The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this
little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every Presidential
address, but, more importantly, wield a free hand in selecting, presenting, and
interpreting the great issues in our nation."
One of the things I like about C-SPAN
November 14, 2009 - 09:06 ET by CO2MakerWhen you watch a major political speech on C-SPAN, it is not preceded by a half-hour of handicapping the prospects, like you see on sports pre-game shows. And when the speech is over, there is no "instant analysis" and live shots of a floor reporter asking an opposition politician what he or she thought of the speech they just heard.
I thoroughly detest that methodology in all commercial TV.
It's like the journalists watched something exciting or at least important, and then they say to the viewers, "Wow, that got me stirred up. Watch while my colleagues and I have pundit-sex [oral intercourse] for another half hour."
Awesome, and that was
November 14, 2009 - 09:48 ET by Guapo DiabloAwesome, and that was 1969. ...plus 40 years later the MSM still saves democrats $millions every year cheerleading their efforts while they demonize conservatives.
" Agnew challenged the
November 14, 2009 - 10:23 ET by chessplayer" Agnew challenged the media "to turn their critical powers on themselves."
FoxNews used to have a little segment on weekends in which they (both libs and conservatives) critiqued themselves on how they covered a particular story. Comes as no surprise that they always gave themselves A+`s
Wow, 1969. And looking
November 14, 2009 - 11:15 ET by RR GOPWow, 1969. And looking back over those forty years we see a steady increase in government spending (yeah, long before the Evil Bush got us into Iraq and squandered all that money that could be used instead for socialized medicine and keeping all those poor folks who are dying in the streets every day), increases in Great Society and New Deal "programs", more regulations in everything from environmental to economic issues, more laws to regulate John Q. Citizen, more power in general for the government, a nosier government, more and more powerful Left-wing advocacy groups...
But yet despite spending 50% of every tax dollar (supposedly) on "helping the poor", it's still not enough, the poor are still with us, and we still have pollution that is going to destroy the planet in a few short years despite the Green Movement's/EPA's gains, and despite all the government interference with business...well, look what we have now.
The answer is clear: We simply have to spend more and make up more programs and bureaucracies! That's it!
If anyone caught in a time warp back in 1969 can read this, don't believe it when others tell you that America's best days lie ahead.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 86% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.