#873 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Thursday March 7)
Good morning,
PLAY-BY-PLAY VERSUS COLOR COMMENTARY
After my observations on the difference between reporting facts and loading up reports with opinion, several of you agreed. Here is Peter Bain’s trenchant analysis of the trend away from news, from the perspective of a great newsman:
“I loved Russell Baker. If you haven’t read his memoir, “Growing Up,” I encourage you to do so. He is one of the best observers of the American condition I have encountered, and it is appropriate that the column he wrote for so many years for the New York Times was entitled, ”The Observer.”
As is often discussed in the context of athletes, one of the hardest decisions for anyone to make is when to retire. Russell Baker, after close to a half-century in our newspapers, gave one of the best explanations I’ve ever heard. He said, in essence, he decided to retire because he didn’t understand what his job was any more.
He stated that when he started out as a young cub at the (at that time) venerable Baltimore Sun, there were two kinds of newspaper writers: Reporters and Editorialists. Reporters wrote what had happened. Editorialists wrote what they thought about what had happened. This, to Russell, was clear and made eminent sense. Then, he notes, there emerged this new creature: the journalist. Russell said he could never figure out what a journalist did. Were they reporters? But then why did their reporting include so much opinion? Were they editorialists whose work was printed in the news section? This befuddled Russell, and so he retired. And he cautioned us as he left the office that, if the trend continued, it would become awfully difficult to separate fact from opinion. Indeed.
At least in the sports booth, we know who the play-by-play man is and who is the color commentator. I wish our media would be so honest as to make that distinction and hold to it as well. Russell Baker was right. I miss him.”
FOND MEMORIES OF THE NEWS OF MY YOUTH
The other day, I quoted Walter Cronkite, the anchor of CBS News back “in the day.” I came close but it wasn’t exact. His nightly sign-off was “And that’s the way it is, [the date of the broadcast].” I went back to watch his sign-off and that of his chief competitors, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley on NBC. Their sign-off was “Good night Chet,” and “Good night David. And good night for NBC News.”
I’m not sure how or why our family switched from NBC to CBS seemingly randomly (ABC became a worthy competitor over time), but it was refreshing to hear the ever-so-slight difference in delivery and focus. It made me think that these days, one can hardly switch from MSNBC to Fox, for instance, to reflect upon the differences, as those differences are so profound so as to make any comparison more or less useless. They are completely different—not so much about nuance in covering a story (though there is some of that), as about their covering completely different news about what each considers news.
The news in the late 20th century took various forms and shapes. Over the ensuing years, I discovered PBS news, particularly the MacNeil/Lehrer Report. PBS, and ABC with its daily program on the Iran hostage crisis, tended to focus in a more in-depth manner on specific issues.
But the news departments also embraced other types of programming. One such type of program was, to quote Frank Bellamy, “looking backward.” There were many shows that looked at past news events and periods to provide a review and perspective and divine messages and instruction from the events of the past. One wonderful show that I listened to religiously (and even recorded on cassette tape to listen again) was Linda Ellerbee’s series on National Public Radio. She would choose a year, or a week, or even a day or moment, upon which to report. It was filled with facts, context, relation to present-day circumstances, and wry observation.
I tend to think that looking backward is not really a focus of current news and analysis—and this is our loss. We seem to have abandoned not only the ability to think critically, but also think by analogy and perspective. It is as if only the opinions of the reporter are important—and not the lessons of the past nor the thinking of those who had to navigate challenges in the past. In leaving this historic perspective behind, we have lost much.
COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS
As I was searching for information for this Musing, I found the sign-off that delivered upon Huntley’s retirement. The ordinarily stoic Cronkite spoke admiringly, even lovingly, about Huntley He called him both a competitor and “a colleague and a good friend.” Then he signed off in the manner of Huntley-Brinkley, with “Good night Chet.” Brinkley, on the other hand, broke with his traditional sign-off, saying, “Good luck Chet.” In these old days, there was honor and respect among the news anchors, something sorely lacking these days.
BOOKS ABOUT THE PRESS
Katharine Graham’s Pulitzer Prize winning Personal History is a great insight into her life running the Washington Post and dealing with, among other things, the Pentagon Papers. For a political book par extraordinaire, which in large measure delves into the changing nature of the press’s relationship with politicians, All the Truth Is Out by Matt Bai is a modern classic. And of course there’s All the President’s Men, by Woodward and Bernstein, and for fiction, The Quiet American, by Graham Greene.
Have a great day,
Glenn