While accepting the National Press Club’s Fourth Estate Award Thursday night, NBC Nightly News anchor Lester Holt showed surprising self-awareness as he devoted most of his speech to admitting that the news media must listen to critics and “strive to be better.” It was a far cry from his last acceptance speech after winning the Edward R. Murrow Award in March, when he declared that “fairness is overrated.”
At first, he started out with the standard press whining about people no longer believing their biased reporting: “I will argue we have in fact been a beacon of information through this crisis [the pandemic]. Unfortunately at a time many Americans are distrustful of traditional sources of facts, summarily reject what we do, and are more likely to answer the siren’s call of fantasy.” Holt fretted: “It leaves journalism without its voice or certainly mutes it, and the world really needs our voice right now.”
The anchor then assured: “I’m really trying not to make this another one of those ‘woe is us’ speeches or ‘we are not enemies of the people’ speeches.” However, he warned: “...if we are serious about pushing back against the assault on journalism in this country, I think we’re going to have to listen, read the room, and self-reflect.”
Holt talked about actually taking some criticism of his work to heart:
Today we get emails from viewers and I do sometimes skim through Twitter after a broadcast to see what people are saying. Many of the sharply critical remarks that people share in postings and emails are off target....occasionally there are remarks or observations that sting or touch a nerve and aren’t so off base. Calling us out for how a story was reported, not so much factual errors per se, but more contextual points, tonal points.
He confessed that those “are critiques that nag at the back of my mind” and cause him “to admit to myself, you know, we could have been better. We should have been better, more precise. And I make a mental note for the next time.”
After noting how much the media landscape has changed and the reality that “audiences don’t have to come to us,” Holt urged his fellow journalists: “We have to strive to be better. Better today than the day before and better yet the next day. And it means a willingness to look into the mirror sometimes.”
Though he again felt the need to reassure his colleagues that he wasn’t buying too much of the criticism: “I know it sounds like I'm winding up for some big variation of blame the victim, suggesting journalism has somehow brought the anti-press assault upon itself. Believe me, I am not. I don’t believe that for a second.”
Still, Holt gently advised: “Our voices as journalists have never been more important and we cannot become what are fervent critics want us to be: tone deaf. We have to strive to be pitch perfect.”
While complaining that “facts are under assault,” he cautioned: “We can’t write off every ill word spoken about us with mockery and disdain. Not if we’re going to be that trusted beacon of information. Not if we’re going to be the established counterweight of false narratives.”
Holt posed the question: “We are witnessing a giant reset in this country....What makes us think journalism is immune to reset?” He implored: “...we must break free from the echo chambers that too often drown out independent storytelling.”
Wrapping up this passage of his address, Holt observed:
I realize I raise more questions in all this than I answer, but they’re questions we cannot be afraid to process because it is not the old days when ours was the loudest and most trusted voice in the room. We’re still the ones doing a lot of the talking. But the answers may be at least partially found in listening. Sometimes you do have to care about what they’re saying about you.
The real question is whether Holt will practice what he preaches or if he still thinks “fairness is overrated.”
Here is a partial transcript of Holt’s October 21 remarks:
9:04 PM ET
(...)
LESTER HOLT: I have to tell you, I thought we’d be past this by now. I frankly thought a lot of things would be different. That the pandemic would be journalism’s finest hour. A beacon of information for a country brought together, much like 9/11, ready to sacrifice for each other and lift each other from this plague. You know how that worked out.
Well, I will argue we have in fact been a beacon of information through this crisis. Unfortunately at a time many Americans are distrustful of traditional sources of facts, summarily reject what we do, and are more likely to answer the siren’s call of fantasy. I’m not gonna tell you anything you don’t know. It leaves journalism without its voice or certainly mutes it, and the world really needs our voice right now. A voice of clarity and fidelity.
I’m really trying not to make this another one of those “woe is us” speeches or “we are not enemies of the people” speeches. Believe me, I’ve given some of those. Knowing what our peers in places like Afghanistan and Myanmar face makes it pretty hard to dwell on the criticism we’ve received. But if we are serious about pushing back against the assault on journalism in this country, I think we’re going to have to listen, read the room, and self-reflect.
When I started in this business, if someone didn’t like something they saw on TV, they sent letters or called. Imagine that, picking up the phone. For a short period in the seventies, I worked summer relief as a receptionist at a TV station in Sacramento, answering calls at the switchboard, “Good evening, KCRA.” I fielded complaints about everything from the anchors appearances to why a favorite show was preempted. Folks would get amazingly worked up over small things. Most of them I kind of wrote off, I even hung up on a few or told them if they didn’t like what they were watching, they might try changing the channel. Now keep in mind, I was a teenager and awfully immature. But what I do remember most is those times that angry callers were right, their complaint was legitimate.
Today we get emails from viewers and I do sometimes skim through Twitter after a broadcast to see what people are saying. Many of the sharply critical remarks that people share in postings and emails are off target. Some incendiary, unworthy of comment or reply, mostly stuff that kind of rolls off your back. But like those callers to the TV station, occasionally there are remarks or observations that sting or touch a nerve and aren’t so off base. Calling us out for how a story was reported, not so much factual errors per se, but more contextual points, tonal points.
They are critiques that nag at the back of my mind. And when I finally allow myself to acknowledge some truth to their criticism, I’m able to admit to myself, you know, we could have been better. We should have been better, more precise. And I make a mental note for the next time.
When I started in news way back in the late ’70s, a press card would open a lot of doors. Our legitimacy and rights were a given. It was a heady time to be a journalist. Watergate was still fresh in our minds, the three major network evening programs were among the primary sources of news. Of course today, newsmakers don’t have to come through us and audiences don’t have to come to us. There are plenty of bypass filters. We have to strive to be better. Better today than the day before and better yet the next day. And it means a willingness to look into the mirror sometimes.
I know it sounds like I'm winding up for some big variation of blame the victim, suggesting journalism has somehow brought the anti-press assault upon itself. Believe me, I am not. I don’t believe that for a second. The stories we’re covering today are stories of a lifetime – the pandemic, democracy on the ropes. We’ve got to be in the game. Not as some wounded version of ourselves, but a version still capable and open to learning, still growing and capable of self-correction when necessary. Our voices as journalists have never been more important and we cannot become what are fervent critics want us to be: tone deaf. We have to strive to be pitch perfect.
Facts are under assault, gaslighting has penetrated the mainstream. We can help fill that space, however, between what people say and what they know in their hearts and what feels good to believe versus what doesn’t. We can’t write off every ill word spoken about us with mockery and disdain. Not if we’re going to be that trusted beacon of information. Not if we’re going to be the established counterweight of false narratives.
We are witnessing a giant reset in this country – from the workplace, the way we shop, our values, our beliefs, our levels of tolerance. What makes us think journalism is immune to reset? Because society is changing does not mean our credo or principles must change. If we can’t lump criticism – I should say we can’t lump criticism into one-size-fits-all containers or fall victim to the mistaken belief that we’re the only ones that get to ask the questions. And most important, we must break free from the echo chambers that too often drown out independent storytelling.
The passion for news that brought so many of us into this business has to now be focused on envisioning our role going forward. If you accept the premise that free and independent journalism in this country has been damaged, how do we repair it? What needs to be repaired? What do we want to be as an industry, one with so many faces and directions already?
I realize I raise more questions in all this than I answer, but they’re questions we cannot be afraid to process because it is not the old days when ours was the loudest and most trusted voice in the room. We’re still the ones doing a lot of the talking. But the answers may be at least partially found in listening. Sometimes you do have to care about what they’re saying about you.
(...)
