Basic HTML Version
34
"elite" few controlled a tremendous
amount of the information flowing to
much of the nation.
A Powerful Few
"A small group of men," said the
Vice-President, "numbering perhaps no
more than a dozen anchor men, com–
mentators and executive producers,
settle upon the film and commentary
that is to reach the public. They decide
what forty to fifty million Americans
will learn of the day's events in the na–
tion and in the world."
Mr. Agnew then referred to the
newscasters as the "small und unelected
elite," using vast power, "unchecked,"
which had "served to distort traditional
rhythms of 'normality' ... our national
seard1 for interoal peace and stability."
He specitically pointed out "Gresham's
Law," which he said "seems to be oper–
ating in the network news. Bad news
drives out good. Concurrence can no
longer compete with dissent. One min–
ute of Eldridge Cleaver is worth ten
minutes of Roy Wilkins...."
Then, Mr. Agnew stated, "l'm not
asking for government censorship or
any other kind of censorship."
But the news media were c¡uick to
point out Mr. Agnew's remarks con–
cerning Federal licensing of the net–
works and broadcasting stations - and
called Mr. Agnew's remarks , even
though he plainly stated he was not call–
ing for government censorship, "in–
timidation
!"
Perhaps much of the fright was over
personal telephone calls received by top
executives of the leading networks by
the newly appointed head of the Federal
Communications Commission, Dean
Burch, which, it was noted, was un–
prcccdented. The new Chairman of the
FCC had requested scripts of the news
commentary concerning the Presidential
address.
Further, Mr. Agnew had expressed
indignation over the "instant analysis"
of President Nixon's November 3
speech on the Vietnam war.
"President Nixon delivered the most
important address of his adminis–
tration," the Vice-President said. "His
hope was to rally the American people
The
PLAIN TRUTH
to see the conflict through to a lasting
and just peace in the Pacitic." But in the
newscasts immediately following the re–
marks of the President, said Mr.
Agnew, "His words and policies were
subjected to instant analysis and quer–
ulous criticism."
What was especial ly arntating to
sorne of the newscasters was Mr.
Agnew's reference to the power of per–
sonality in reporting - that a "raised
eyebrow, an inflection of the voice, a
caustic remark dropped in the middle of
a broadcast can raise doubts in a million
minds about the veracity of a public
ofJicial or the wisdom of a government
policy."
Emotional Reaction
Then carne the storm of protest in
newspapers, magazines, and over tele–
vision. Mr. Agnew's words were termed
a "disgraceful attack." One leading
weekly news magazine said the "tone
was still truculent, occasionally intem–
perate and bullying," when describing
a later speech of Mr. Agnew.
Worry was expressed that the nation
was headed toward "an ugly era of the
most fearsome suppression and in–
timidation."
Then carne statements, published in
the press, by leaders representing prac–
tically every political viewpoint in the
country.
Pierre Salinger, who was White
House Press Secretary under President
John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. John–
son, caJled Mr. Agnew's remarks "one
of the most dangerous speeches ever
given by a high public official."
In his criticisms of critics who criti–
cized Mr. Nixon's speech, in which he
caJled for unity, Mr. Agnew was criti–
cized for having delivered "an attack
with the ultirnatc aim of dividing this
country on Vietnam," in the words of
Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachu–
setts. Perhaps sorne were wondering
how to find a subtle appea1 for division
in Mr. Agnew's strong words about
unity, but such were the analyses of
sorne leaders.
The networks' 1cading officials edi–
torialized too.
President of NBC, Julian Goodman,
Jaouary,
1970
tcrrned Mr. Agnew's address "an appeal
to prejudice," and said "evidently he
would prefer a different kind of ...
reporting ... one that would be sub–
servient to whatever political group
was in authority at the time."
The President of ABC, Leonard H.
Goldcnson, however, expressed conti–
dence" in the ultimate judgment of
the American public."
But CBS President Frank Stanton
was not c¡uite so rnild. He said the
Vice-President's speech was "an un–
precedented attempt to intimidate a
news media."
And so raged the furor.
But regardless as to the anguish the
Vice.President rnay have caused the
news media, it is true, nevertheless, they
began to look at themselves.
Sorne \'V'ere Not Angry
Av Westin, Executive Producer of the
ABC Evening News, said, ''My politics
are more conservative than Vice-P.resi–
dcnt Agnew would have people believe,
but that doesn't rnatter. My job is to
keep my politics and those of others off
the air. You can't always be objective
because you bring your experiences into
things ... so you try to be fair. We are
on guard. We're not infallible. We try."
And in this staternent perhaps the
American people can tind sorne com–
mon scnse and balance.
Notwithstanding indignation over
the charges concerning "a raised eye–
brow," or "an inflection of the voice
raising doubts in the minds of millions"
- it
is
true that such casual innuendoes
can do just that.
As a broadcaster, and a writer, I arn
very much aware of the powerful poten·
tia! of radio, television and the printed
word.
There is a significant difference be–
tween my type of broadcasting, tele–
casting and writing and that of the net–
work newscasters, however.
I invite people to write in for liter–
ature. In so doing, many tens of thou–
sands express opinions over what they
have heard. Further, l rneet many thou·
sands of rny listeners each year - some–
thing
1
sincerely doubt the network
newscaslers do - and I rneet dozcns as