Comments on: The Murrow Era

By: nother

nother — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:57:12 +0000

I would love to know what Murrow would have thought about embedded reporters during the war. Would he have taken part or would he have decried it as implicit propaganda?

Is it not better that we are finally letting go of the objectivity myth in Journalism? Every piece of journalism originates from a simple person; a person who has their own values, morals, ethics, and fragilities. All journalism is at its essence subjective and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as we acknowledge it. The most we can strive for is subjectivity grounded in sincerity and integrity. It reminds me of the critics of Michael Moore when they say that he is giving opinions under the cover of “documentaries.” Well, the first thing a documentarian learns is that all documentaries are subjective and Moore has said this many times.

By: charliequidnunc

charliequidnunc — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 19:32:20 +0000

Great program on Murrow. I really enjoyed listening to it in the Podcast. Good for you in putting listener “Ken” on to talk about the fact that McCarthy was correct that there were Communists active in our government at the time. That is accurate, but it does not justify the lies, fabrication, and methods used by McCarthy to ruin hundreds of lives. Your reference to Dan Rather, when you mispoke Dan Schorr’s name after the call, was more telling than you might think. Rather’s use of fake memos to try to bring down George Bush, was similar to McCarthy’s use of fake “lists” of Communists in the State Department. They were both wrong. Fake but accurate doesn’t cut it in journalism.

I played the clip of Ken’s call on my podcast today at http://ripnread.blogspot.com/2005/11/rip-read-157-2005-11-27.html . Give it a listen at 13:00 minutes in to hear the section I’m talking about.

By: UtahOwl

UtahOwl — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:29:23 +0000

As someone old enough to remember McCarthy and in high school in the late ’50s, I’d like to point out something that went unremarked in the film and the OpenSource prog. Namely, there was an unholy KKKabal of Dixiecrats from the South who completely backed McCarthy, and in fact contributed strategies & support. These included Senator James Eastland, plus the infamous “HUAC” – House Un-American Activities Commission. HUAC led witchhunts long after McCarthy was discredited. These Southerners were using deeply-embedded racist and anti-Semitic feelings in the American public. Interesting how no one remembers – or comments – on the influence of anti-Semitism, anti-immigrant, anti-black, etc., emotions on this era. I’d be interested in Danial Schorr’s comments on this aspect.

FOr the rest – It’s happening again, folks – we just re-define the “Other=Enemy” and do it again. Will someone please dope-slap Ann Coulter & Mean Jean Schmidt for me? I didn’t spend all that effort fighting for women’s rights to boost these dingbats into their 15 min of brainless cheap shots…

By: Jill

Jill — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 03:12:59 +0000

While this topic has many aspects worth discussing, I’d like to introduce one thing in particular. For those who’ve seen the movie – think back to the moment just after Murrow’s program on McCarthy. What happened? They waited for the phones to ring. Murrow took a courageous stand, but without positive public feedback, the result might have been very different. I made an attempt at a grassroots website for public feedback to the press, but shut down due to a variety of problems (see http://www.NoMandate.org). My research for the site revealed a LOT of groups working toward media reform. My favorite remains – http://www.RapidResponseNetwork.org . If the American public wants better journalism, we’d better get to asking for it. (‘No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices’ – ERM) RapidResponseNetwork does a good, steady job of letting the press know how they’re doing.

By: Franz Hartl

Franz Hartl — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:44:18 +0000

Regarding the comment made towards the end about the worry of accuracy of blogging:

We should look at things like wiki news, http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Main_Page

and Oh my news as the model, http://english.ohmynews.com/ , places of collabrative effort. not a lone wolf.

With that in mind.

Good Night and Good Luck, shows Murrow as a great Newsroom leader. So can we hear a little bit about Murrow as a leader

By: Rochelle

Rochelle — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:43:07 +0000

This is an interesting conversation, about authenicity; the more slick mainstream media gets, the less authenticity there is, it seems. I’m reflecting now on Brendan’s thoughts on podcasting and authenticity and how difficult that’s become from a professional angle. Not only podcasting and audio, in fact; consider wikipedia, which has an authencity (increasingly) that Britannica is losing. Are our values about authenticity changing? Do we not trust people who are “experts” anymore?

By: dmitried

dmitried — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:41:47 +0000

You guys fudged the caller’s Venona question, and went with the Lattimore minimization. I think this is clear.

By: Abby

Abby — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:11:01 +0000

Also Bob Woodward. Maybe he deserves a show of his own. I’m reminded of the glorious image of him, as portrayed by Redford in the movie, and I can’t help comparing the image with his current reality.

By: mhuyck

mhuyck — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:01:49 +0000

I find myself yearning for greater integrity in journalism as well and I am turning to the blogosphere to find it.

avecfrites asks for a journalism code of conduct. Bayosphere.com is a San Francisco Bay area blog that asks contributers to sign this Citizen Journalist Pledge:

http://bayosphere.com/node/594

Of course, this is not a non-profit organization certifying anyone else, but maybe it’s a step in the right direction. Does this pledge have the language you’re looking for? Now, if I can just find a similar site for the Massachusetts Bay area…

By: avecfrites

avecfrites — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 16:23:11 +0000

A couple of years ago I was at a party where I met a reporter for The Boston Globe. I expressed to him my disappointment that commercial interests seemed to be influencing journalism unduly. I was surprised when he commented that he didn’t agree that journalists had a higher calling than anyone else; he said that news was just a business and shouldn’t be treated otherwise.

That’s not the way I learned it in journalism class. So the temptation is to ask your guests whether or not journalism is a calling separate from business. But, with cable news, bloggers, and the like, I don’t know how anyone can answer that question authoritatively or universally any more. Journalists who dedicate themselves to a higher ideal are now lumped in the public mind with smashmouth bloggers and radio talk show hosts.

Maybe we need a non-profit organization that publishes a code of conduct for its members — then journalists could decide whether to join and adhere, and could tout their membership. And the organization could expel members whose conduct violates the terms of membership. Think Consumer Reports meets Brill’s Content meets Better Business Bureau meets West Point Honor Code. Something… Anything…