Click to Listen to the Show (24 MB MP3)
David Halberstam’s life seems to have flashed before him in a last supper at Chez Panisse in Berkleley last Saturday night, in the company of other long-form journalists of distinction: Orville Schell, dean of the Berkeley graduate program in journalism; his wife, filmmaker Liu Baifang; Mark Danner of The New Yorker and The New York Review of Books; and the radio documentarian Sandy Tolan of Berkeley and NPR. We will recapitulate the dinner conversation on Open Source tonight. From the participants it sounds like a combination of master class, bitching session, retrospective on the journalism of the Iraq war, and David’s own intimations of mortality after a cardiac “event” last fall — all of it delivered with David’s passionate and rather grand independence of view, his peculiar combination, as Sandy Tolan notes, of star power and innocent curiosity; his critical and obsessive love of the craft of reporting; and his devotion to the people who practiced it.
We talk often on Open Source about institutional journalism and its afflictions. Real journalistic institutions are something else entirely. David Halberstam was a free-standing pillar — never of “personal journalism,” but of civic journalism with his own signature on it. Ralph Nader, who went to high school with Halberstam in Winsted, Connecticut, shook his head with me today in a chance meeting in Cambridge. “Can you imagine,” Ralph said: “David Halberstam, age 29, cabling The New York Times from Vietnam to say that if the foreign desk wouldn’t take his word on the story he would ‘resign — repeat resign’ from the paper.” Which he did, of course, eventually. But on newsprint and in hard covers, he could be counted on for one man’s anti-institutional observation of war, politics, culture–including sports. With his friend and mine J. Anthony Lukas, another Times refugee best remembered for books like Common Ground, Halberstam founded [more], the journalism review. His doctrine, his enthusiasm and his example in relentless reporting may be far more important in the long run than fame of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
So we pick up many threads of affection and thanks in table talk about David Halberstam this hour — wishing he were adding his quotient of gossip and outrage.
Orville Schell
-
Dean, UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism
Author of fourteen books, nine about China
Mark Danner
-
Staff Writer, The New Yorker
Professor of Journalism, UC Berkeley
Professor of Human Rights and Journalism, Bard College
Sandy Tolan
-
Co-founder, Homeland Productions
Author, The Lemon Tree: An Arab, a Jew, and the Heart of the Middle East
- Extra Credit Reading
-
David Halberstam, 1934-2007
David Halberstam, Brave New Review, A Letter To My Daughter, originally published May 2, 1982: “If anything, knowing America’s faults and imperfections, perhaps I love it more than your grandfather and great-grandfather, for perhaps I love it more wisely. During all those years, I kept on my desk a small quote from Albert Camus which he had written during France’s war in Algeria: ‘I should like to be able to love my country and love justice.’”
Dexter Filkins, A Skeptical Vietnam Voice Still Echoes in the Fog of Iraq, The New York Times, April 25, 2007: “During four years of war in Iraq, American reporters on the ground in Baghdad have often found themselves coming under criticism remarkably similar to that which Mr. Halberstam endured: those journalists in Baghdad, so said the Bush administration and its supporters, only reported the bad news.”
Sally Cruickshank, David Halberstam crossed my path, Sally Cruikshank, April 25, 2007: “When I was in eighth grade I was the feature editor for the school newspaper, and very serious about pursuing a career as a newspaper writer. I was invited to go to a special conference in New York, for school newspaper editors, the culmination of which was a luncheon at a big old hotel in Manhattan. David Halberstam, the famous journalist and author who died this week, was the guest speaker.”
Joe Strupp, NY Times Had To Scramble For Halberstam Obit, Editor and Publisher, April 24, 2007: “Obituary Editor Bill McDonald, who has at least 1,000 pre-written obituaries on file, said Halberstam’s good health and active lifestyle made him seem less likely to require an obituary soon, despite being 73 and a legendary Times figure.”
Derek Catsap, A Bit Too Soon?, dcat, April 25, 2007: “He loved to work, which fueled his productivity. His missteps were never a function of meannness or gratuitousness — his book was a mess, but there is no doubting Halberstam’s seriousness and commitment to civil rights and his profound respect for the movement’s activists — and oftentimes his level of commitment led to his finest work.”
dew, David Halberstam, 1934-2007, Buddy’s Books and Bait, April 25, 2007: “‘The Best and the Brightest’ is something everyone should read. While it is about America’s tragic descent into the Vietnam quagmire, it’s really about much more than that — our flawed system, American hubris, the lack of understanding about the world and its people.”
Scott Simon, An Essay on the Late David Halberstam, All Things Considered, April 24, 2007: “Once I told David about a colonel in El Salvador who awarded me a sour smile when I asked what he thought was an impertinent question. ‘Who do you think you are,’ the colonel asked. ‘David Halberstam?’ David laughed and said, ‘My boy, as you travel around the world, I think you will find my name is ‘horse’s ass’ in many languages.’”
I visited David Halberstam about three years ago at his apartment on the Upper West Side of New York City. I had to pinch myself as I entered the lobby, spoke with the doorman and took the old elevator to the floor where Halberstam lived with his wife, Jean.
His home was immaculate. Ordered and tasteful but, for all his fame and wealth, I thought smaller than what he could probably afford. There was a small dog, and Jean was working and writing in an alcove. Inside the cool apartment, there was calmness and quiet. A home for writers.
Halberstam was a big man and he guided me into a small, neat, glistening kitchen. Sitting at the table, which seemed much too small for his gangly legs, I felt at home – one of the family – in his kitchen. He grabbed us some bottled water and I fired up my recorder and we talked about the Iraq War in the context of Vietnam.
He was prescient, of course. His powerful, deep voice filled the room. He was careful not to say Iraq was the same as Vietnam, but as he spoke his tired voice took on the tone of someone who had seen all this before, reviewing a tired lesson for yet another class of slow students.
Halberstam’s answers were rambling and wide-ranging. Later, as I reviewed the audio, it was almost impossible to edit; his words and sentences streamed out of the delta of his thinking, overflowing banks, drowning me. Here and there he kept returning to his current project, the book about the Korean war, and his fascination with Korea as a postwar industrial and technological powerhouse.
Between sips of water it seemed like we were moving and hopping from the war that preceded my birth, the war that marked my birth in 1954 (Dien Bien Phu) and the war we’re all in.
He was exceedingly gracious and generous, but his internal clock clicked off at precisely one hour and I was ushered out. Before we packed up, I snapped two photos of Halberstam near his sink and fridge. He dominated the kitchen, dominated the recording, and his work changed me.
Summer of ’49 is the only book about the Yankees I’ve ever liked (and that is saying a lot). And for people who don’t like sports, Halberstam was probably the most likely writer to actually make it matter.
Growing up in the 80s and 90s there was so much that went wrong with sports, and I don’t blame the people around me who reject professional sports. I’m just glad he was writing about sports at the time so my generation could remain centered.
Maybe if he had the chance, Halberstam could have saved basketball with a book.
I don’t think it was ironic at all that I heard about his death on Sports Center at 5 in the morning. He had as much to do with my being a fan as Sportcenter, even if he did write about the Yankees and Redsox.
Halberstam’s pedigree and physical stature, his role in setting before the American people the true state of the war in Vietnam, and the tome-like nature of his books all suggest to the reader “you can trust me to tell you the complete truth and story re (x, y or z).” I wonder what Halberstam’s position would be regarding Janet Malcom’s famous (and clearly intentionally provoking) claim concerning the nature of the journalist’s enterprise:
”Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible. He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people’s vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.” THE JOURNALIST AND THE MURDERER.
Alas, I think I am (slightly) too young to have been familiar with David Halberstam’s early defining work . . . his early defining truth-seeking. So, I know little about him other than what I’ve recently heard. (I do like what I have heard.) That said, I wish I had been at the dinner the other night to ask him and the other guests some vital questions of relevance for us all today. . .
Namely, Why is it so darn hard for average people — the “American Public” — to gain an accurate understanding of events, situations, ideas, principles, and dynamics of the world from the press-media? Put more accurately, Why do the press-media not do a much better job of seeking the truth, seeking understanding, and CONVEYING it well?
For example, all too often — I’d say, usually and typically — the media-press will take great pains to host two “sides” of a story and host or mediate the story as if there is no such thing as more accurate facts and less accurate facts, or as more accurate understanding versus downight foolishness. Because of the way human psychology works, this approach can very often leave the impression with many members of an audience that: There truly is no such thing as a real difference between reasonably accurate facts and downright falsehoods; and That both sides can be “right”; and/or, That the answer to an entire question (e.g., is the global environment warming or not?) is a mere matter of viewpoint, nothing more. The notion of “hearing-out” both sides becomes highly confused with the incorrect idea that the facts or views of both sides can be equally accurate and wise. The media are contributing to that confusion in many ways.
Many channels of mass journalism/media seem to have forgotten what it is to “get to the bottom of things.” In debates of very important matters, matters of life and death sometimes!, debates (on programs, in papers, etc.) have to occur within a fixed and quick time period; vastly different “facts” are presented; people argue and present only the superficial first-level reasons for their views; people often forget to respond to the other person’s facts and arguments, or ignore them entirely; the host or mediator of the argument does not take any position or (often) ask tough questions; and all parties leave the discussion politely agreeing to disagree. The audience is left holding the bag, often a very confused and empty bag. It leaves me wondering, how many people remember Socrates?
Although I can’t ask David Halberstam himself these questions, and I would imagine that he would share some of these concerns, I’m glad we do have the chance to ask these types of questions of the guests, who include the Dean of the U.C. Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism. (I went to U.C. Berkeley myself; Go Bears!). I look forward to the program.
Let’s get to the bottom of this issue, or at least as near as we can get.
I look forward to this show. What a loss in the death of David Halberstam. His brother, the respected Dr. Michael Halberstam in the Washington DC area, also had an untimely death, He walked in on a professional burgler inside his home and was shot and killed.
Chris, pretty funny you happened upon Ralph Nader in Cambridge. Was he driving his corvair???
Thanks for doing this show and how lucky you are to get the Dean of UC Berkeley on the air tonight.
I want to know what Halberstam (and the guests) thought were the reasons the not-so-long-ago lessons of Vietnam were never learnt or ignored by people in the present administration and all the Congress people who supported the decision to attack and occupy Iraq.
Perhaps somebody should point vout that the parallels between then and now (between the puzzling quagmire in Viet-Nam and the current one in Irak) break down upon even a cursory review: Those were the Best and the Brightest these guys here and now to paraphrase Benson on Quayle are “not John Kennedy”. The legacy the neocons will leave will be a different puzzle: how did such incompetence get its hands in so much power?
Namely, Why is it so darn hard for average people — the “American Public†— to gain an accurate understanding of events, situations, ideas, principles, and dynamics of the world from the press-media? Put more accurately, Why do the press-media not do a much better job of seeking the truth, seeking understanding, and CONVEYING it well?
The flaw in this question is the assumption that there is some monolithic entity – “the press media”.
Your question is equivalent to a person who only eats at McDonald’s and Pizza Hut wondering why it’s so hard to get a great meal in this town. The “American Public†prefer to get their news from CNN and Fox and similar fast news establishments, so if they end up bloated and journalistically malnourished whose fault is that?
Does Micky-D’s or Burger King have an obligation to provide either a balanced diet or gourmet cooking? No! They’re fast-food cheesburger joints and if you make a regular diet of that then you’re asking for a heart attack and you deserve it when it arrives. Have it your way.
Plenty of people – MILLIONS, around the world, infact, saw through this con-job of a war, and MILLIONS are aware of the role that lobbysists and other special interests have in shaping legislation, and so on and so forth. All the information we needed to get the story straight was readily available.
No one holds a gun to anyone’s head and forces them to get their news from CNN and similar infotainment sources – outfits whose idea of investigative reporting is getting to the bottom of who fathered Anna Nicole Smith’s baby or the latest on the Phil Spector trial. But that’s what sells.
Perhaps somebody should point vout that the parallels between then and now (between the puzzling quagmire in Viet-Nam and the current one in Irak) break down upon even a cursory review: Those were the Best and the Brightest these guys here and now to paraphrase Benson on Quayle are “not John Kennedyâ€.
Since I’m old enough to remember Vietnam, I’d like to suggest that many of us at the time regarded the phrase “the best and the brightest” to be humorous irony.
The people who got us into Vietnam were no brighter or more competent than the current crop of scoundrels. Nor were they any more honest. Iraq was justified by the Big Lies – WMD’s and the intimation that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Vietnam was justified by its own Big Lies – the alleged Aug 4 1964 attack on US destroyers, and the “Domino Theory” of Communist conquest.
In fact the parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are starkly scary – in both cases we started had bad intelligence that was subsequently twisted by intellectually dishonest senior officials who had an exaggerated and triumphalist vision of the power and capability of the United States, not to mention an insanely zealous sense that the US should be on some kind of mission to fix things in parts of the world that were none of our business.
Furthermore, as it became clear that the whole thing was a disasterous sham, senior officials persisted in trying just one more thing – a bombing campaign here, an escalation there – oblivious to the human cost. The last Americans out of Iraq will probably be lifted by helicopter off the roof the the US Embassy .
plnelson: Yes, although I completely realize that people make their own decisions about what to consume (in terms of media as well as everything else), people are, alas, far from perfect in their choices sometimes (me included). But, more importantly, there are some key differences between the general situation (supplier and consumer) and the relationship among media, citizens, and country. Among them, there are at least three important ones . . .
1. Many of the most powerful channels of media do their thing over public property, i.e., the “airwaves”, and are given permission by the public (via government) to do so. To do what they do, they are asking for, and benefiting from, a privilege, and with that comes responsibility toward the common good.
2. Beyond that, the press-media expect, and are often granted, additional privileges. They gain special access to the war zones and to many other events and scenes. (I’m not saying that going into a war zone is great. I’m talking about rights or privileges that go beyond those of the general public.) And, they seek and hope for exemption from certain laws, such as the witness and subpoena laws. These things — access and privileges — also bring with them certain responsibilities.
3. Finally, they (many members of the press-media) claim to be giving us the balanced story, the accurate story, the facts, and so forth.
So, for these reasons and others, I believe that the press-media (not speaking monolithically) do indeed have alot of responsibility for what average people consume in terms of information. Sometimes, we get excellent coverage. Many times, we get muddled thinking. I haven’t listened to the show yet. It plays on my local station at 1:00 AM. But, I will listed to it asap from the web. I look forward to it.
Thanks for your comments.
Of course, when I say that I haven’t listened to the show yet, I mean today’s show, not ROS in general. ROS is a great show — though like every other show, sometimes still suffers from some of the problems I mention above, i.e., time constraints, difficulty in taking us to the bottom of certain issues, difficulty in confirming or negating (for the audiences) various “facts” that are stated or claimed sometimes by participants, and so forth. But, many shows don’t even try to do so. ROS at least tries, and often does a great job.
Hug says . . .
Among them, there are at least three important ones . . .
1. Many of the most powerful channels of media do their thing over public property,
[. . . ]
2. Beyond that, the press-media expect, and are often granted, additional privileges.
[ . . . ]
also bring with them certain responsibilities.
3. Finally, they (many members of the press-media) claim to be giving us the balanced story, the accurate story, the facts, and so forth.
These are moral arguments of no practical consequence. You could just as easily argue that McDoanalds and the rest of the fast food industry has some kind of moral obligation to provide better food as a result of cattle being fed on public grazing lands, or the fact that the fast food industry would never have achieved its vaunted status without the taxpayer-supplied interstate highway system.
CNN, Fox, at al, are what they and discussing how they “should” be is a waste of time with no practical result.
War, and how we citizens gather information to make important decisions ARE intensely practical matters. That our soldiers are being killed, that our military is overstretched, that billions from our treasury is being wasted, and that terrorists everywhere are given encouragement and recruiting success are very practical, concrete, down-to-earth, nuts-and-bolts considerations – there is nothing abstract or philosophical about them, and the arguments about journalism and our choices should be equally free from moral and philosophical abstractions.
plnelson: I don’t follow why you fully equate a McDonalds analogy with the media-press? They may share some qualities, and some percs, but the three I mentioned are different for the press-media than they are for McDonalds, at least as far as I can tell.
Also, I don’t follow why you think of morality or philosophy as without consequence? I would suggest that it is because of moral-type considerations that you feel strongly about wars or the untruths that were told. And, Halberstam’s choices and actions — to seek and tell truth, even when it wasn’t popular — were moral in nature. Indeed, as I understand it, one of the main reasons that people are celebrating his life is that he had a great character in a moral sense, at least in these respects. Moral sentiments and considerations, and actions, and philosophy have very substantial consequences and practicalities every day. Indeed, they are very practical matters. If you’d like me to provide examples, please let me know.
Most people I’ve heard speak about such matters (in the media itself) do feel that the media-press have a special responsibility to the public, especially in a democracy. The question among most, or at least many, people is not whether the press-media have a special responsibility, but rather whether they are living up to that responsibility as well as they might or should do. A great movie, for example, is “Good Night, Good Luck” (or something like that) — i.e., the one about Ed R. Murrow. That movie shows a segment from a real speech he gave at a media award dinner, and you can find the full transcript on the web. It was a great speech.
In any case, thanks for the posts, and I’ll look forward to hearing the show.
Halberstam’s last speech (text and audio file):
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/apr2007/db20070424_609685.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_businessweek+exclusives
A great interview (Tom Ashbrook, On Point) with Halberstam on Iraq ( comparing Tet/Viet Nam)from last October:
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2006/10/20061023_a_main.asp
As well two great journalists ( imo) came to mind last night that were not mentioned ( other than John Burns)- James Fallows ( of the Atlantic Monthly) and Bill Moyers. Bill Moyers especially for the excellent program last night on PBS ” Buying the War” (journalists’ mass failures) which you can watch online. I think Halberstam would approve- what a job Moyers did on that. We have had a lot of criticism of this sort but nothing nearly so thorough and damning:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html
Also, I don’t follow why you think of morality or philosophy as without consequence? I would suggest that it is because of moral-type considerations that you feel strongly about wars or the untruths that were told.
How I feel about the war is also of no consequence.
The “press-media” is the way it is by a process of natural selection – they have evolved into what they are in order to survive in their environment – vastly more people are interested in Anna Nicole Smith’s baby or the latest celebrity foreign adoption than they are in geopolitics or agricultural trade policy or other wonkish arcana. Arguing that it “should” be some other way on moral grounds is a wasted of time – you want an “intelligent designer” who enforces moral precepts but you’re stuck with evolution.
Interesting show. Glad Halberstam’s ambivalent liberal position on the Vietnam War was noted. No radical he, as Chris was correct to point out. Last part of the conversation especially interesting, when the subject of journalists and power came up. Everyone happy to wax nostalgic about ye olden days when journalists spoke truth to power, but when time came to name those in positions of power and influence who had declined to do so in the run up to the Iraq War — Thomas Friedman, Judith Miller, David Broder: the list as long as it is revolting — everyone but Chris turned sheep and declined to do so. Especially surprising was the normally estimable Mark Danner, who claimed the conversation had been a private one after all — the very conversation he came on air to discuss…
but when time came to name those in positions of power and influence who had declined to do so in the run up to the Iraq War — Thomas Friedman, Judith Miller, David Broder: the list as long as it is revolting — everyone but Chris turned sheep and declined to do so.
But this is consistent with my thesis that modern journalism is theater.
It has been widely noted that what consumers demand of their news is entertainment. Celebrities, dramatic videos of tornadoes, fires, train wrecks, criminal trials, etc. Hard-news, wonkish stories about economics or foreign policy issues – things that might actually have an effect on our prosperity, safety or well-being – are too boring to make the cut.
Following the White House Correspondents Dinner last year Stephen Colbert was raked over the coals by journalists of all political stripes for turning what was supposed to be a light entertaining evening into a squirm-fest as he castigated both Bush AND the press. The press in Washington would rather throw birthday parties for the people they cover, or laugh along with “MC Rove” skits than ask hard questions.
I’m reminded of the Warner Brother cartoons featuring Sam Sheepdog and Ralph Wolf who play their roles during working hours but when the whistle blows they stop, grab their lunch buckets, punch their time-cards and exchange pleasantries. If you watch a TV sitcom or drama do you really think the people who are adversaries in the show are adversaries in real life?
And it’s almost always been this way with the press. The press winked-and nudged their way past presidential extramarital affairs, they ignored Jim Crow for decades, during every war they beat the patriotic drum, etc And it’s not just in national news. When I was a kid in Wellesley the local paper was known as the “Swellesley” Townsman because it was in the pockets of local businesses and everything in town was just swell! If we wanted to read anything negative or scandalous about Wellesley we had to read it in the Boston Globe.
And frankly it took years before reporters even started asking the tough questions WRT Vietnam. “The Best and the Brightest” was published in 1972. It was probably around 1968 that a few major reporters began to ask discomfitting questions. But the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which is really what got things escalating, happened in 1964 and at that time the press accepted everything they were told uncritically.
“…Mark Danner, who claimed the conversation had been a private one after all…”
Hurley
And my favorite thing — he did it in such a way as to suggest that Chris had crossed a line by asking him to talk about it, while he, himself, was behaving more appropriately (as in “superior”) in declining. It reminded me of the way the press acted on the show about Steven Colbert (and on other shows about the press, which I’m not able to name right now).
plnelson: After reading your recent post regarding the press as theatre, and associated criticism, I have a better understanding of where you are coming from, and I also share some of your concerns. That said, going back to the earlier posts, just because press is theatre (to a degree), and many criticisms are fair and apparently necessary, that does not equate to the notions that moral considerations and philosophy are of no consequence or that things can’t change for the better if we try to make them do so.
For example, consider Thomas Paine. He, Thomas Jefferson, Washington, and the others had a huge impact, and their actions were of great consequence. And, it’s interesting to note (I think I’m accurate in saying this, but if I’m mistaken, sorry), . . . I think that Thomas Paine published his initial pamphlets on his own. In other words, driven substantially by moral considerations and passions, he didn’t merely wait for the media of his time to do something, and I don’t think he initially published his stuff through the media. If I remember my history correctly, I think that he printed pamphlets and had them distributed.
Life is a bit more complex today when it comes to communications and ideas. There is more clutter (alot more), but there are also more options.
You’re right, Kate. Danner’s retreat had the air of prim demurral you might expect had Chris invited everyone to fart the Hallelujah chorus. It was an honest and important question. Imagine how I.F. Stone would have answered it and you’ll have some measure of the rot.
consider Thomas Paine. He, Thomas Jefferson, Washington, and the others had a huge impact, and their actions were of great consequence. And, it’s interesting to note (I think I’m accurate in saying this, but if I’m mistaken, sorry), . . . I think that Thomas Paine published his initial pamphlets on his own. In other words, driven substantially by moral considerations and passions, he didn’t merely wait for the media of his time to do something, and I don’t think he initially published his stuff through the media. If I remember my history correctly, I think that he printed pamphlets and had them distributed.
I’m an engineer with a science background so I tend to look at things more mechanistically. But I would argue that it wasn’t the moral force of his aguments that led to his, and others of his ilk’s, success, but their ability to persuade others. That same ability can be put to many uses, commercial, political, religious, etc. Just as the Calvinists believed that earthly success reflected moral correctness, I think we are too quick to explain the success of our heroes by their morally heroic qualities, instead of just their rhetorical, marketing, and “branding” skills.
I would point out that Hitler’s Mein Kampf was also very persuasive but few people would suggest that this was due to its moral strength. And today all across the Islamic world young people have been persuaded that blowing themselves up, and taking a few infidels with them, is a morally correct action. The grass-roots means by which Islamic radicalism is taking hold among the young is in many disturbing ways similiar to the way that ideas of democracy and independence spread among the American colonists in the 1770′s.
So, bottom line WRT to this topic – whether an argument is “moral” is not as important to whether it successfully changes the world, as whether it is positioned, marketed, branded, or explained properly. If journalism ever decides to take its role more seriously this is just as likely to be due to commercial, political, technological, demographic or popular style and fashion reasons as it is to any moral argument. And, of course, journalism could move in the opposite direction for all the same reasons.
I just finished listening to the show. Great show. Too much to comment on here. But, I’ll mention a few things that struck me as very important. . .
I believe it was Mark who paraphrased Halberstam’s point about “power” by saying something like, “many people essentially relinquish their judgment to their desire not to be left out.”
This comment, combined with the following several quotes from others, says alot about the situation and about the media’s role and responsibility . . . .
“The average man is destitute of independence of opinion. He is not interested in contriving an opinion of his own, by study and reflection, but is only anxious to find out what his neighbor’s opinion is and slavishly adopt it.” — Mark Twain
(quoted from “The Perils of the Imitation Age,” by Eric Bonabeau, Harvard Business Review, June, 2004.)
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” — Thomas Jefferson
(from Jefferson’s letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, Jan. 6, 1816, as quoted from The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations)
“The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.” — Albert Einstein
People in the show also mentioned things like the “positions of influence” and “huge platform” enjoyed by many members of the press/media.
Earlier in the show, someone (I believe it was the Dean) quoted Halberstam as recently saying that, in the 1960s he was “deeply dissatisfied with my own reporting”, that he was “deeply depressed”, that “I had done well enough for myself, sure”, and that he had “won the right prizes.”
Now that David Halberstam has spoken, — and surely the Dean seems to understand — can the press/media do something so that the problem doesn’t just perpetuate itself and get even worse?
Towards the end of the program, the Dean says, “I can’t tell you when the last time I ran into somebody who was proud of what they’re doing.” Of course, there is apparently much truth in that comment. The truth of the comment was effectively underlined by the laughter of one of the other guests in the background — that type of laughter often being a signal that what is being said has much truth in it.
So, what can be done? If that feeling is shared among many of the Deans of the prominent schools of journalism, and if those Deans also understand the vitally important role of education and (responsible and informed) journalism in a democracy, then (among other things) why not send an open letter to The New York Times expressing some concern and critique of the state of journalism and the press/media today, signed by the Deans themselves and other members of faculty? The Times prints open letters frequently on other issues. Or, if the Times won’t print the open letter for free (as news) — which would of course say alot about the issue — then run the letter in a full-page ad in the Times. Today’s New York Times’s Section A (Thursday, April 26) contains substantial ads from Chanel, Cartier, Gucci, Green Godess, Lord & Taylor, De Beers, verizon (full page), Porsche (half page), a full-page ad for a book about pasta, Bose, a full-page ad from “Cigar Aficianado” and “Wine Spectator” magazines, a large Op-Ed page ad from ExxonMobil, and a full-page ad from Sprint, among others. All in Section A. All in today’s paper.
If the Deans of journalism schools were to write an open letter, to the Times, regarding these concerns (these general concerns, not singling out the Times), then that letter would and should appear (without cost) in a prominent place, and if the Times won’t run it as news, then someone would/should help pay for it. There is no reason not to do it. Can you think of one?
Of course, there is one reason, but it’s not a good one in this situation, and that is reflected in Halberstam’s comment as paraphrased by Mark, “many people essentially relinquish their judgment to their desire not to be left out.”
I will add one other thing, perhaps understandable (but also very telling): The guests were much more willing to name the names of people they applaud and are happy to be associated with (there were many named, including Halberstam himself, the Didions, Talese, Pinkus, etc. etc.; sorry if I got the spelling wrong!) than they were to name anyone involved in less responsible journalism. There is apparently a big difference between the way journalists mention names of people in stories regarding other professions and aspects of life, but only want to name names of the more admired members of their own profession.
As critical as this message is, I am rooting for journalists to improve their profession, and I am a significant consumer of media. I think the show was great, and the guests were very honest. Now it’s time to take action based on that honesty. I’ll look forward to the open letter in the Times.
As usual, great show ROS.
I thought the show was a tad weak, perhaps because it jumped about in exploring two themes: the particularities of Halberstam’s personal characteristics and career, and the nature of journalistic integrity and of the mainstream media world, etc. These could have been better tied together – perhaps by more fully unpacking Lydon’s comment that Halberstam was a “viable brand” . . ..
Note to all concerned and to the Dean:
If The New York Times won’t run the open letter mentioned in my earlier post (i.e., from the concerned deans of schools of journalism, etc.) as news (although it should), and if the deans or schools cannot otherwise afford the money for a full-page ad in The Times to contain the letter, and if a wealthy concerned citizen cannot be found to pay the tab, then the deans should perhaps approach The Annenberg Foundation. The Foundation’s web site says: “The Annenberg Foundation exists to advance the public well-being through improved communication.” Isn’t that what we are all talking about? And, on the Foundation’s site, they describe a recent gift from the Foundation to the Metropolitan Opera, in N.Y., of $10 MILLION!, to help support the Met’s 2009-2010 season. As much as I like the opera, my guess is that an excellent series of full-page ads, containing the open letter and other helpful info, would cost much much less and ultimately benefit many many more people — if they ultimately have an impact on the quality of journalism (or the management of journalistic organizations/media) as they should. If we don’t improve journalism/media, that may contribute to real-life tragedy — not merely watching a tragedy at the opera.
Again, I’m rooting for journalists to improve the profession, and I’m rooting for the Dean. Go Bears!
I agree with WM Palmer only because after I heard the Moyers show ( linked above). He was not only not afraid to name names but he was thorough; he seemed to have left no one out. A great re-entry post-retirement!
The other point, and I may be repeating the obvious and what has been said already beyond noting that journalists “did not want to be left out”, is that they concurrently forgot who they were working for ultimately: the people. It’s as if doctors were working for the insurance and the drug companies, not their patients.
The program gets a mention:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/7080
hurley — thanks for the analogy. From now on when I’m subjected to someone’s attempt to make me feel appallingly inappropriate, I’ll remember your comment and gain immediate perspective. And, since that kind of thing happens to me often, I’ll get a lot of use out of it.
hug — I enjoyed your posts. Yes, they were happy to name Joan Didion, Gay Talese, etal, of course to have been at David Halberstam’s last dinner, but not to come out in a serious way against what passes for journalism these days. I liked your idea about the ad. I’ve contributed to similar ads in the Times and I don’t have a cent. Somehow, I don’t see journalists signing any such thing.
I wasn’t a fan of Bill Moyers until he left public television and, then, he gave some electric speeches and interviews. Maybe you have to die a little first.
katemcshane — Alas, unfortunately, your comment “Maybe you have to die a little first” to speak out freely and honestly and also to get some real attention and ears these days apparently has much truth to it in many ways.
By the way, thanks for your other comments.
Josh Marshall was on Moyers’ Journal this Friday evening- the video is available online ( link below). Marshall is a real journalist, a clear thinker, very articulate in this instance about why the story of the Justice Department firing of the attorney generals is alarming. It’s not only about Gonzales but ultimately about the White House use of our Justice Department through Gonzales for partisan politics.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04272007/watch2.html
On that site you can also see the interview with Jon Stewart and JS’s Daily Show clip of McCain’s appearance…McCain, revealing the poverty of his position on the war, so afraid of Stewart’s truth-telling that he launched into a strange mode of non-stop talking trying to prevent Stewart from saying anything. Of course one can’t keep that up……….
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04272007/
The transcripts are on the site.