Basic HTML Version
36
meo gamboling on the moon; when you
laugh at the twinkle in the newscaster's
eye as he adds the one little humorous
incident in the news before clos ing -
you
feel
yo11 k11011'
these
men.
But you do not know them, at al!.
And you do not know the person–
alities who daily infonn you through
newspapers, magazines, and radio. You
may read any number of articles in a
oewspaper, forming opinions through
them, quoting them, talking of them to
f riends and associates, perhaps even
making speeches of your own from
them - not realizing the extent to
which your own opinions are urged
upon you through the methods of writ–
ing, as well as the fact reported.
' 'We
tw . .."
said Av Westin. "You
can't always be objective because you
bring your experiences into things - so
you t ry to be fair."
Even computers are not more "objec–
tive" than the sum total of information
fed into them. And while many a TV
viewer has noted the monotonous, life.
less type of delivery effected by some
few newsmen, it should be pointed out
that many deliberately attempt to keep
their voices evenly paced to avoid ap–
pearance of personal involvement with
the news they report - especia!ly in
"neutral news."
N eutral Commentary?
Any time the matter-of-fact reporting
of the news becomes analysis, or "corn–
mentary," it is much more than just
machine-l ike, imperso nal recital of
events. Hun'tan beiogs, no matter how
hard they try to be objective, can, like
computers, repeat only what is "fed into
them." This meaos they do not repeat
only the current events of wbich they
speak, but the sum total of their own
personalities can sbape and mold those
events - while not to the point of dis–
tortion, certainly, in maoy cases to the
point of mild interpretation or subtly
suggested conclusions urged upon the
listeners.
After aH, that's exactly why some
newscasters make good, and why others
do not. It is the reason why some news–
casters have top ratings, can draw huge
salaries, and others continue to monoto·
The
PLAIN TRUTH
nousJy inform people of "neutral
news."
The personality, tone of voice, and
appearance of newsmen on television is
what creates ratings - not just the
read iog of the news.
Substantially, the major networks re–
port the same news, using the same wire
services - and aJI th ree are nearly
always represented at major newsworthy
happenings.
If
people were desirous only of re–
ceiving the news, they could do so by
call -in tape recordings, _or actually be lis–
tening to radio stations where the news
was truly computerized .
Ever wonder what time it was, and
d ial the code number on your telephone
to find out? No voice personality there
- just continua!, monotonous repeti–
tion as the seconds tick by.
But if people were desirous only of
receiving the harsh, cold facts, in the
most impersonal tone possible, there
would be no reason for special follow–
iogs for particular newscasters. lt is the
way
the news is p.resented by thi s or that
personality that makes the differeoce.
And nothing is wrong with al! this
- but realizing the truth of the matter,
it is diflicult to understand the in–
dignant retorts from newsmen over Mr.
Agnew's statements concerning the
"raised eyebrow" or the "inflection of
the voice."
After all, raised eyebrows and special
voice inflections from a favorite news–
caster can and
do
belp "interpret" the
news to miJlions. This is not to allege
there is either something dangerous or
even mildly harmful because this is so
- but knowing it is so, it would seem
newsmen and their chiefs would not
react with such alarm when a Jeading
member of the administration specula–
tes aloud whether thjs personal "power"
should not be openly d iscussed.
And it was discussed - as a direct
result of Mr. Agnew's speeches.
Personally I did not know anything
about any of the meo whose pictures
were pubJished, together with biograph–
ical sketch, in
Time
magazine. But hav–
ing seen the brief sketch - learning the
ages, marital status, and brief profes–
siooal background of these meo - I
find 1 have a slightly more inforrnative
January,
1970
insight into leading newscasters' person–
alities that are on the
air
during prime
television hours.
A free governmeqt should be freely
subject to criticism by its people; and the
government has the right to criticize
trends in prívate life just as freely. Only
by such g ive-and-take of opinion can a
free system survive. Disagreement is
possible without being defamatory or
"disagreeable," however.
Above Critidsm?
By virtue of their existence, the na–
tional networks of radio and television
are the critics of government. But are
they, then, above criticism? The pri vate
citizens of the United States freely criti–
cize their government, and one another.
Only rarely does one hear of prívate
citizens criticizing the way their news is
handled.
Could it be sorne newsrnen and their
producers have somehow become "dois–
tered"? Have they, like professionals in
some select fields, become a little too
remote frorn the people they serve? Oc–
cupying the positioo of "teachers" of
events, perhaps some have forgotten the
need for teachers to be taught,
to
listen
to their students once in a while, and to
continually reappraise and upgrade their
own education.
Mr.
Agnew did state pJainly he was
not
calling for government censorship.
Instead of taking hirn precisely at his
word ( and his word was a matter of
public record spoken before a large au–
dience and repeated instantly in the
press around the United States), many
chose to directly contradict
Mr.
Agnew's
statement by alleging he was, in prac–
tica! fact, calling for censorship and was
using a bullying tone, intimidation, and
threatening that perhaps our nation was
on the way toward an '"ugly age'" of the
most '"fearsome suppression"' of the
news.
But while some were worryiog about
the terrifying specter of "managed
news," others got busy and did precisely
as Vice President Agnew suggesfed -
took a look at themselves.
The President of ABC News, Elmer
W. Lower, recently reported the results
of a survey conducted by Professor Ir·
viog E. Fang of the University of Min-