Basic HTML Version
January,
1970
nesota's School of Journalism and Mass
Communications.
According to the report, there had
bcen examination of the news portions
of all ABC evening newscasts between
January
1
and November
27, 1969.
Thc
news program's monitors consumed
95
hours, 3 minutes, and were broken
clown into 16 categories for the survey.
It
was found that a total of 12 hours
and 39 minutes would have been con–
sidcred "favorable" to supporters of the
administration, and to the adminis–
tration itself. 10 bours and 18 minutes
would have been considered unfavor–
able to the administration, and would
have been "displeasing" to a supporter
of Mr. Nixon. Neutral news was stated
to have consumed 8 hours,
18
minutes.
Other categories madc up the balance.
The ABC Presidcnt said he thought it
was a "good idea" to take a look at
news broadcastiog, and, following the
report, he said, "Our reporting has been
fair and impartía! - the kind of jour–
nalism which is thc obligation of news–
men protected by the free press guaran–
tee we enjoy under thc first amendment.
I think it fair to predict that we will
continue to enjoy thosc first amendment
protections."
But newsmen, like Volkswagens, "are
only human" after all. They can and do
make mistakes, and they are capable of
their owo personal feelings.
Any individual who is engaged in the
business of informing other people -
large numbers of people -- of daily
events, is wielding a certain power. It is
true that, with raised eyebrows, dramatic
pauses, or certain voice inflections, opin–
ions can be created.
And the raised eyebrows of the
printed word are perhaps even more
subtle.
They, too, exist.
A Case in Point
For example, when Astronaut Edwin
Aldrin recently cited two cases of news–
paper distortions concerning him, his
remarks were given a rather strange
label by a newspaper reportee.
According to the reportee, Astronaut
Aldrin had mentioned a misleading
headline run by a Chicago newspaper
The
PLAIN TRUTH
which read, "Aldrin Reveals Lunar Sick–
ness," during a press conference follow–
ing the flight of the Apollo mission. As
the famous Astronaut continued talking
to newsmen after the formal portien of
the press conference was over, he ex–
plained how he had actually become
sick while Bying in an airplane during a
simulated
lunar mission. Hearing of
this, a newspapcr reportee had dubbed it
"lunar sickness." He then spoke of an–
other time when his uncle joked with a
fellow passenger returning aboard a
commerciaJ airliner from the Cape after
watching a space launch. His uncle told
the passenger, who it happens was a re–
portee, that sorne scientists thought
lunar rocks would burst into flames
when exposed to oxygen - this in jest.
"Well, this turned into a headline
which said, 'Aldrin Fears Lunar Rock,'"
said the Astronaut. Fair enough. He
merely mentioned the two instances
where, even though the substance of thc
articles could possibly have deared up
the matter, the headlines were appar–
ently misleading.
And the title of the article reporting
these remarks of Aldrin?
"AtORlN
LAUDS
APOLLO 12,
AT·
TACKS NEWS MEDIA."
"Attacks?" Well, not exactly - he
did, however, mention two cases of mis–
leading statements printed by newsmen.
But newspapers, too, must recognize
the need for continua! criticism. A daily
newspaper wields a considerable m–
fluence over its readers.
Comfortable, personal, familiar -
the daily paper had played the part of
"window to the world" long before the
advent of television. lt's still the way
millions prefer to get their news. It's
difficult to listen to TV over a quick
breakfast in a downtown office building
coffee shop - not so with the favorite
newspaper.
The same comments concerning news
commentators can apply to column ists,
sports writers, or editors. Sometimes,
they create a following.
And that's power!
I, personally, must be continually
aware of the power of the press,
and
of
radio,
AND
of television! I fully expect
there will be sorne criticism. Sometimes
37
I agree with my critics, and sometimes 1
don't. But
T
always read what thcy have
to say, and try to listen to any who are
obviously sincere, reasonable, and who
have learned how to disagree without
being "disagreeable." I turn a very deaf
ear to persccution.
Of course 1 am not merely reporting
the news, but giving an in-depth and
overall analysis of the trends in currcnt
human events, not only from the com–
bined sources of our round-the-world
newsgathering capabilities, but through
the knowledge of Biblically prophesied
eveots from now on into the forcseeable
future. There is no particular force, or
power, which urges me to be "objec–
tive" other than my own deep con–
victions. The preaching of various rcli–
gious doctrines can hardly
be
called
"objective" by anyone -- and people
expect preachers to preach, politicians to
politic, ami newsmen to report the
news.
Still,
J
am very much awarc of the
sobering responsibility on the shoulders
of any individual who is engaged in
passing on information, urging concepts
and conclusions, helping to form opin–
ions and convictions, in other human
beiogs.
Something WAS Accomplished!
Now that the smoke of battle has
cleared, and perhaps sorne of thc early
fears of "an ugly age," of "fearsome
suppression" and "intimidation" have
partly subsided, it is clear that Mr.
Agoew's remarks did accomplish some–
thing.
They made newsmen, telecasters, and
broadcasting officials, as well as the
American public, take a good look at
their news media.
Ooly when the American people quit
doing this will any of us need to fear
any "ugly age of fearsome suppression,"
or big-brother type dictatorial manage–
ment of the news.
for aH thcir protests, the major news
media did precisely as the Vice-Presi–
dent suggested, even if in anger, and
seemingly on the defensive.
And when all is said and done, the
entirety of the American public is better
off as a result.
D